Literature DB >> 23523434

Validation of a consensus-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold using an objective functional external anchor.

Robert J Gatchel1, Tom G Mayer, Yunhee Choi, Roger Chou.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is defined as the smallest change in an outcome that a patient would perceive as meaningful. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) group proposed defining the MCID as a 30% improvement in self-reported pain or function. However, this MCID threshold has not been validated against an objective physical measure.
PURPOSE: To test the validity of the IMMPACT-based MCID threshold, using an objective physical measure as an external anchor. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: Prospective study of chronic disabling occupational lumbar disorder (CDOLD) patients completing a functional restoration program. PATIENT SAMPLE: A consecutive cohort of 743 CDOLD patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-report measures of pain-related function were compared with an objective lifting measure, the progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation (PILE), obtained after treatment.
METHODS: The association between reporting 30% or greater improvement (the IMMPACT's MCID key criterion) and the PILE score after treatment was assessed.
RESULTS: A 30% or greater improvement on the self-report measures was significantly associated with improvement in physical function on the PILE task.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive use of the MCID to evaluate effects of treatment in spinal disorders, this is the first empirical documentation of the validity of the IMMPACT's 30% change criterion compared with an objective physical anchor.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic disabling occupational lumbar spinal disorders; Functional restoration; IMMPACT; Minimal clinically important difference (MCID); PILE (progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation)

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23523434     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  3 in total

Review 1.  Challenges for defining minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after spinal cord injury.

Authors:  X Wu; J Liu; L G Tanadini; D P Lammertse; A R Blight; John L K Kramer; G Scivoletto; L Jones; S Kirshblum; R Abel; J Fawcett; E Field-Fote; J Guest; B Levinson; D Maier; K Tansey; N Weidner; W G Tetzlaff; T Hothorn; A Curt; J D Steeves
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 2.772

2.  Digital Rehabilitation for Acute Low Back Pain: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Authors:  Fabíola Costa; Dora Janela; Maria Molinos; Robert G Moulder; Jorge Lains; Virgílio Bento; Justin Scheer; Vijay Yanamadala; Fernando Dias Correia; Steven P Cohen
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-07-03       Impact factor: 2.832

3.  Two-year follow-up results of fluoroscopic cervical epidural injections in chronic axial or discogenic neck pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

Authors:  Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Kimberly A Cash; Vidyasagar Pampati; Yogesh Malla
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 3.738

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.