Literature DB >> 22579152

Minimum clinically important difference in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale with data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE).

Eric D A Hermes1, Daniel Sokoloff, T Scott Stroup, Robert A Rosenheck.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Establishing the minimum clinically important difference in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is important to the interpretation of the research and clinical work conducted with this scale.
METHOD: This study employed both anchor-based and distributive methods to estimate the minimum clinically important difference for the PANSS by using data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) schizophrenia trial, a large, multicenter trial for patients with schizophrenia. By using an equipercentile method, data from 1,442 individuals linked PANSS scores with both clinician and patient ratings on the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI). Data were also used to investigate the magnitude of the standard error of measurement (SEM), offering another estimate of the minimum clinically important difference.
RESULTS: Cross-sectional, clinician-rated CGI-Severity of illness scores of 1 through 7 linked to PANSS scores of 32.4, 42.2, 57.5, 74.5, 93.0, 110.9, and 131.0, respectively. The minimum clinically important difference for PANSS scores using this scale equaled a 15.3-point (34.0%) change from baseline. A 1.96 SEM on the PANSS corresponded to a 16.5-point (36.2%) change from baseline. The minimum clinically important difference for a subsample with above-median baseline PANSS scores was 38% higher than a sample with lower baseline scores. With the patient-rated CGI as the anchor, PANSS scores were higher for CGI scores of 1 through 4, and the minimum clinically important difference was lower, 11.2 points (24.6%).
CONCLUSION: Minimum clinically important difference estimates from a longer-term effectiveness trial were consistent with previous efforts from shorter-term efficacy trials. Minimum clinically important difference estimates can help clinicians and researchers design future studies and interpret treatment change in future research and clinical work. © Copyright 2012 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22579152      PMCID: PMC3786588          DOI: 10.4088/JCP.11m07162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry        ISSN: 0160-6689            Impact factor:   4.384


  27 in total

1.  Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  K W Wyrwich; N A Nienaber; W M Tierney; F D Wolinsky
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.

Authors:  N S Jacobson; P Truax
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1991-02

3.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; J Singer; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-12

Review 4.  Interpretation of quality of life changes.

Authors:  E Lydick; R S Epstein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Characterizing quality of life among patients with chronic mental illness: a critical examination of the self-report methodology.

Authors:  M Atkinson; S Zibin; H Chuang
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 18.112

6.  Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores.

Authors:  D Osoba; G Rodrigues; J Myles; B Zee; J Pater
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Changes in the SF-36 in 12 months in a clinical sample of disadvantaged older adults.

Authors:  F D Wolinsky; G J Wan; W M Tierney
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

Authors:  C A McHorney; A R Tarlov
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection?

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.051

10.  Assessing clinical and functional outcomes in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) schizophrenia trial.

Authors:  Marvin S Swartz; Diana O Perkins; T Scott Stroup; Joseph P McEvoy; Jennifer M Nieri; David C Haak
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 9.306

View more
  29 in total

1.  Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) in Assessing Outcomes of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Authors:  Elina A Stefanovics; Robert A Rosenheck; Karen M Jones; Grant Huang; John H Krystal
Journal:  Psychiatr Q       Date:  2018-03

2.  Quetiapine-induced hypertriglyceridaemia causing acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  John Mark Franco; Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Timothy John Griffin
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2015-05-14

Review 3.  Perphenazine for schizophrenia.

Authors:  Benno Hartung; Stephanie Sampson; Stefan Leucht
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-03-06

4.  Using a randomized controlled trial to test whether modifications to contingency management improve outcomes for heavy drinkers with serious mental illness.

Authors:  Oladunni Oluwoye; Jordan Skalisky; Ekaterina Burduli; Naomi S Chaytor; Sterling McPherson; Sean M Murphy; Jalene Herron; Katherine Hirchak; Mason Burley; Richard K Ries; John M Roll; Michael G McDonell
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Racial-Ethnic Disparities in First-Episode Psychosis Treatment Outcomes From the RAISE-ETP Study.

Authors:  Oladunni Oluwoye; Bryan Stiles; Maria Monroe-DeVita; Lydia Chwastiak; Jon M McClellan; Dennis Dyck; Leopoldo J Cabassa; Michael G McDonell
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 6.  Clozapine Response Rates among People with Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: Data from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Dan Siskind; Victor Siskind; Steve Kisely
Journal:  Can J Psychiatry       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.356

7.  Choice of randomization to clozapine versus other second generation antipsychotics in the CATIE schizophrenia trial.

Authors:  Eric Hermes; Robert Rosenheck
Journal:  J Psychopharmacol       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 4.153

8.  Randomized multicenter investigation of folate plus vitamin B12 supplementation in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Joshua L Roffman; J Steven Lamberti; Eric Achtyes; Eric A Macklin; Gail C Galendez; Lisa H Raeke; Noah J Silverstein; Jordan W Smoller; Michele Hill; Donald C Goff
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 21.596

9.  Health-related quality of life in outpatients with schizophrenia: factors that determine changes over time.

Authors:  Cristina Domenech; Carlo Altamura; Corrado Bernasconi; Ricardo Corral; Helio Elkis; Jonathan Evans; Ashok Malla; Marie-Odile Krebs; Anna-Lena Nordstroem; Mathias Zink; Josep Maria Haro
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 4.328

10.  Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Novel Smoking Cessation App Designed for Individuals With Co-Occurring Tobacco Use Disorder and Serious Mental Illness.

Authors:  Roger Vilardaga; Javier Rizo; Paige E Palenski; Paolo Mannelli; Jason A Oliver; Francis J Mcclernon
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 4.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.