STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To establish the major clinically important improvement (MCII) of the timed up-and-go test (TUG), 40-meter self-paced walk test (40-m SPWT), 30-second chair stand (30 CST), and a 20-cm step test in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing physiotherapy treatment. As a secondary aim, a comparison of methods was employed to evaluate the effect of method on the reported MCII. BACKGROUND: Minimal clinically important difference scores are commonly used by rehabilitation professionals to determine patient response following treatment. A gold standard for calculating MCII has yet to be determined, which has resulted in problems of interpretation due to varied results. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial, 65 patients were randomized into a physiotherapy treatment group for hip OA, in which they completed 4 physical performance measures at baseline and 9 weeks. Upon completion of physiotherapy, patients assessed their response to treatment on a 15-point global rating of change scale (GRCS). MCII was estimated using 3 variations of an anchor-based method, based on the patient's opinion. RESULTS: A comparison of 3 methods resulted in the following change scores being best associated with our definition of MCII: a reduction equal to or greater than 0.8, 1.4, and 1.2 seconds for the TUG; an increase equal to or greater than 0.2, 0.3, and 0.2 m/s for the 40-m SPWT; an increase equal to or greater than 2.0, 2.6, and 2.1 repetitions for the 30 CST; an increase equal to or greater than 5.0, 12.8, and 16.4 steps for the 20-cm step test. CONCLUSION: The variation in methods provided very different results. This illustrates the importance of comparing methodologies and reporting a range of values associated with the MCII, as such values vary, depending upon the methodology chosen.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To establish the major clinically important improvement (MCII) of the timed up-and-go test (TUG), 40-meter self-paced walk test (40-m SPWT), 30-second chair stand (30 CST), and a 20-cm step test in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing physiotherapy treatment. As a secondary aim, a comparison of methods was employed to evaluate the effect of method on the reported MCII. BACKGROUND: Minimal clinically important difference scores are commonly used by rehabilitation professionals to determine patient response following treatment. A gold standard for calculating MCII has yet to be determined, which has resulted in problems of interpretation due to varied results. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial, 65 patients were randomized into a physiotherapy treatment group for hip OA, in which they completed 4 physical performance measures at baseline and 9 weeks. Upon completion of physiotherapy, patients assessed their response to treatment on a 15-point global rating of change scale (GRCS). MCII was estimated using 3 variations of an anchor-based method, based on the patient's opinion. RESULTS: A comparison of 3 methods resulted in the following change scores being best associated with our definition of MCII: a reduction equal to or greater than 0.8, 1.4, and 1.2 seconds for the TUG; an increase equal to or greater than 0.2, 0.3, and 0.2 m/s for the 40-m SPWT; an increase equal to or greater than 2.0, 2.6, and 2.1 repetitions for the 30 CST; an increase equal to or greater than 5.0, 12.8, and 16.4 steps for the 20-cm step test. CONCLUSION: The variation in methods provided very different results. This illustrates the importance of comparing methodologies and reporting a range of values associated with the MCII, as such values vary, depending upon the methodology chosen.
Authors: Louise Klokker; Robin Christensen; Richard Osborne; Elisabeth Ginnerup; Eva E Waehrens; Henning Bliddal; Marius Henriksen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Amy A Kirkham; Sarah E Neil-Sztramko; Joanne Morgan; Sara Hodson; Sarah Weller; Tasha McRae; Kristin L Campbell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-01-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kristin R Archer; Clinton J Devin; Susan W Vanston; Tatsuki Koyama; Sharon E Phillips; Shannon L Mathis; Steven Z George; Matthew J McGirt; Dan M Spengler; Oran S Aaronson; Joseph S Cheng; Stephen T Wegener Journal: J Pain Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Per Aspenberg; Jorge Malouf; Umberto Tarantino; Pedro A García-Hernández; Costantino Corradini; Søren Overgaard; Jan J Stepan; Lars Borris; Eric Lespessailles; Frede Frihagen; Kyriakos Papavasiliou; Helmut Petto; José Ramón Caeiro; Fernando Marin Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Jessica Battisto; Katharina V Echt; Steven L Wolf; Paul Weiss; Madeleine E Hackney Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Luiz Fernando Approbato Selistre; Glaucia Helena Gonçalves; Fernando Augusto Vasilceac; Paula Regina Mendes da Silva Serrão; Theresa Helissa Nakagawa; Marina Petrella; Richard Keith Jones; Stela Márcia Mattiello Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 3.377