Literature DB >> 24556220

Dependence of the minimal clinically important improvement on the baseline value is a consequence of floor and ceiling effects and not different expectations by patients.

Michael M Ward1, Lori C Guthrie2, Maria Alba2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Estimates of minimal clinically important improvements (MCIIs) are larger among patients with higher values at baseline, suggesting that these patients require larger changes to appreciate improvements. We examined if baseline dependency of MCIIs was associated with specific patients across three measures, or was owing to floor and ceiling effects. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We prospectively examined 250 outpatients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We used an anchor-based approach to estimate MCIIs for three measures of RA activity (patient global assessment, swollen joint count, and walking time). We examined if the same patients constituted the baseline subgroups with high MCIIs across measures.
RESULTS: The MCIIs were greater for those with higher baseline values of all three measures. At the ceiling, there was little opportunity to improve, and judgments were unrelated to measured changes. At midrange, improvements were balanced by worsenings, including some judged as improvements. At the floor, improvements were not similarly balanced. Patients in subgroups with high MCII for patient global assessment were not also predominantly in subgroups with high MCII for the swollen joint count or walking time, and vice versa.
CONCLUSION: Variation in MCII by baseline values is because of floor and ceiling effects rather than expectations of particular patients. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ceiling effect; Floor effect; Minimal clinically important difference; Outcome measures; Responsiveness; Rheumatoid arthritis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24556220      PMCID: PMC4004715          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.025

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


  36 in total

1.  Mathematical coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important difference values.

Authors:  John Patrick Browne; Jan H van der Meulen; James D Lewsey; Donna L Lamping; Nick Black
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  What factors influence the measurement properties of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire?

Authors:  Christophe Demoulin; Raymond Ostelo; J André Knottnerus; Rob J E M Smeets
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 3.931

3.  Clinically important difference thresholds of the visual analog scale: a conceptual model for identifying meaningful intraindividual changes for pain intensity.

Authors:  Rüdiger Emshoff; Stefan Bertram; Iris Emshoff
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2011-07-02       Impact factor: 6.961

4.  Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement.

Authors:  Ying-Chih Wang; Dennis L Hart; Paul W Stratford; Jerome E Mioduski
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2011-03-03

5.  The clinical importance of changes in the 0 to 10 numeric rating scale for worst, least, and average pain intensity: analyses of data from clinical trials of duloxetine in pain disorders.

Authors:  John T Farrar; Yili L Pritchett; Michael Robinson; Apurva Prakash; Amy Chappell
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2009-08-08       Impact factor: 5.820

6.  Measuring irritable bowel syndrome patient-reported outcomes with an abdominal pain numeric rating scale.

Authors:  B Spiegel; R Bolus; L A Harris; S Lucak; B Naliboff; E Esrailian; W D Chey; A Lembo; H Karsan; K Tillisch; J Talley; E Mayer; L Chang
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2009-09-12       Impact factor: 8.171

7.  Perception of improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis varies with disease activity levels at baseline.

Authors:  D Aletaha; J Funovits; M M Ward; J S Smolen; T K Kvien
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2009-03-15

8.  Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain.

Authors:  Francisco M Kovacs; Víctor Abraira; Ana Royuela; Josep Corcoll; Luis Alegre; Alejandra Cano; Alfonso Muriel; Javier Zamora; María Teresa Gil del Real; Mario Gestoso; Nicole Mufraggi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Linking the Tinnitus Questionnaire and the subjective Clinical Global Impression: which differences are clinically important?

Authors:  Ilya Adamchic; Peter Alexander Tass; Berthold Langguth; Christian Hauptmann; Michael Koller; Martin Schecklmann; Florian Zeman; Michael Landgrebe
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients.

Authors:  Henrik H Lauridsen; Jan Hartvigsen; Claus Manniche; Lars Korsholm; Niels Grunnet-Nilsson
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-10-25       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  7 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.  Clinically important changes in individual and composite measures of rheumatoid arthritis activity: thresholds applicable in clinical trials.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria I Alba
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 19.103

3.  Minimal Clinically Important Improvement of Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Isabel Castrejon; Martin J Bergman; Maria I Alba; Lori C Guthrie; Theodore Pincus
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 4.666

4.  Estimates of minimal clinically important improvments vary with the responsiveness of the sample.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Maria I Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-11-06       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Evaluation of the Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS): Responsiveness and Minimally Important Change.

Authors:  I N Sierevelt; I C M van Eekeren; D Haverkamp; M L Reilingh; C B Terwee; G M M J Kerkhoffs
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Integrating Distribution-Based and Anchor-Based Techniques to Identify Minimal Important Change for the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) Questionnaire.

Authors:  Kathryn Fackrell; Deborah Ann Hall; Johanna Barry; Derek James Hoare
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-05-31

7.  Median time to pain improvement and the impact of baseline pain severity on pain response in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with tofacitinib.

Authors:  Kurt de Vlam; Alexis Ogdie; Andrew G Bushmakin; Joseph C Cappelleri; Roy Fleischmann; Peter C Taylor; Valderilio Azevedo; Lara Fallon; John Woolcott; Philip J Mease
Journal:  RMD Open       Date:  2021-07
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.