Literature DB >> 24447591

The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score.

Alexandra Rouquette1, Myriam Blanchin2, Véronique Sébille2, Francis Guillemin3, Sylvana M Côté4, Bruno Falissard5, Jean-Benoit Hardouin2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Determining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of questionnaires on an interval scale, the trait level (TL) scale, using item response theory (IRT) models could overcome its association with baseline severity. The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and predictive values (PVs) of the MCID determined on the score scale (MCID-Sc) or the TL scale (MCID-TL). STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: The MCID-Sc and MCID-TL of the MOS-SF36 general health subscale were determined for deterioration and improvement on a cohort of 1,170 patients using an anchor-based method and a partial credit model. The Se, Sp, and PV were calculated using the global rating of change (the anchor) as the gold standard test.
RESULTS: The MCID-Sc magnitude was smaller for improvement (1.58 points) than for deterioration (-7.91 points). The Se, Sp, and PV were similar for MCID-Sc and MCID-TL in both cases. However, if the MCID was defined on the score scale as a function of a range of baseline scores, its Se, Sp, and PV were consistently higher.
CONCLUSION: This study reinforces the recommendations concerning the use of an MCID-Sc defined as a function of a range of baseline scores.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Item response theory; Minimal clinically important difference; Patient-reported outcomes; Questionnaires; Rasch models; Sensitivity and specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24447591     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  8 in total

1.  Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change.

Authors:  Jos Hendrikx; Jaap Fransen; Wietske Kievit; Piet L C M van Riel
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Thresholds for meaningful improvement in WOMAC scores need to be adjusted to patient characteristics after hip and knee replacement.

Authors:  David Kuklinski; Carlos J Marques; Karina Bohlen; Karl C Westphal; Frank Lampe; Alexander Geissler
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-01-15

Review 3.  Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations.

Authors:  Tahira Devji; Gordon H Guyatt; Lyubov Lytvyn; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Farid Foroutan; Behnam Sadeghirad; Rachelle Buchbinder; Rudolf W Poolman; Ian A Harris; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Reed A C Siemieniuk; Per O Vandvik
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 4.  Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain.

Authors:  Mette Frahm Olsen; Eik Bjerre; Maria Damkjær Hansen; Jørgen Hilden; Nino Emanuel Landler; Britta Tendal; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 8.775

5.  Measure of activity performance of the hand (MAP-Hand) questionnaire: linguistic validation, cultural adaptation and psychometric testing in people with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK.

Authors:  Yeliz Prior; Alan Tennant; Sarah Tyson; Ingvild Kjeken; Alison Hammond
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Thresholds for clinically important deterioration versus improvement in COPD health status: results from a randomised controlled trial in pulmonary rehabilitation and an observational study during routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Harma Johanna Alma; Corina de Jong; Danijel Jelusic; Michael Wittmann; Michael Schuler; Robbert Sanderman; Konrad Schultz; Janwillem Kocks; Thys van der Molen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Comparing SF-36 Scores Collected Through Web-Based Questionnaire Self-completions and Telephone Interviews: An Ancillary Study of the SENTIPAT Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Ayşe Açma; Fabrice Carrat; Gilles Hejblum
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 7.076

8.  Practical issues encountered while determining Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Authors:  Pascal Woaye-Hune; Jean-Benoit Hardouin; Paul-Antoine Lehur; Guillaume Meurette; Antoine Vanier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 3.186

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.