Literature DB >> 22767887

When minimal detectable change exceeds a diagnostic test-based threshold change value for an outcome measure: resolving the conflict.

Paul W Stratford1, Daniel L Riddle.   

Abstract

Assessing patient progress is an integral part of physical therapist practice. In an attempt to assist clinical decision making regarding a patient's change status, researchers have offered study-based threshold change values. Often researchers have provided reliability and diagnostic test-based estimates of threshold change values obtained from the same patient sample. A potential dilemma occurs when the reliability (ie, the minimal detectable change [MDC])-based threshold change value exceeds the diagnostic test-based threshold value. How can a change be detected if the threshold change value falls within the limits of error? In this situation, researchers have recommended using the larger MDC threshold change value. In this perspective article, we describe the interpretation of the threshold values provided by each of these estimation methods and consider which one offers information that is more meaningful to the challenge faced by physical therapists when making decisions concerning the change status of patients. The context for our discussion is a clinical vignette that depicts the dilemma outlined above. We conclude this perspective with suggestions for researchers concerning essential information to include when reporting threshold estimates obtained from reliability-based and diagnostic test-based studies of outcome measures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22767887     DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20120002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Ther        ISSN: 0031-9023


  18 in total

1.  Clinician's Commentary on Beyer et al.

Authors:  Sarah Gregor
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 1.037

2.  Reliability and validity of two versions of the upper extremity functional index.

Authors:  Bert M Chesworth; Clayon B Hamilton; David M Walton; Melissa Benoit; Tracy A Blake; Heather Bredy; Cameron Burns; Lianne Chan; Elizabeth Frey; Graham Gillies; Teresa Gravelle; Rick Ho; Robert Holmes; Roland L J Lavallée; Melanie MacKinnon; Alishah Jamal Merchant; Tammy Sherman; Kelly Spears; Darryl Yardley
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.037

3.  Estimating the Threshold Value for Change for the Six Dimensions of the Impairment Inventory of the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment.

Authors:  Rachel Beyer; Caitlin Wharin; Ellen Gillespie; Kathleen Odumeru; Paul W Stratford; Patricia A Miller
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 1.037

4.  Labelling a Patient's Change Status: It's a Confidence Game.

Authors:  Paul W Stratford
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 1.037

5.  Revisiting the Concept of Minimal Detectable Change for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Authors:  Bryant A Seamon; Steven A Kautz; Mark G Bowden; Craig A Velozo
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2022-08-04

6.  Clinical pressure pain threshold testing in neck pain: comparing protocols, responsiveness, and association with psychological variables.

Authors:  David M Walton; Lenerdene Levesque; Martin Payne; Julie Schick
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2014-02-20

7.  Minimal Detectable Change for Gait Speed Depends on Baseline Speed in Individuals With Chronic Stroke.

Authors:  Michael D Lewek; Robert Sykes
Journal:  J Neurol Phys Ther       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.649

8.  A Rasch-validated version of the upper extremity functional index for interval-level measurement of upper extremity function.

Authors:  Clayon B Hamilton; Bert M Chesworth
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2013-06-27

9.  Development and validation of the patient-rated ulnar nerve evaluation.

Authors:  Joy C MacDermid; Ruby Grewal
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Authors:  Derk A van Kampen; W Jaap Willems; Loes W A H van Beers; Rene M Castelein; Vanessa A B Scholtes; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.