Ioana Antonescu1, Susan Scott2, Tung T Tran1, Nancy E Mayo2, Liane S Feldman3. 1. Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. Electronic address: liane.feldman@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical innovations are introduced to improve "recovery," a complex construct often operationalized by the use of patient-reported outcomes. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in an outcome sufficiently important to influence management and is crucial for designing and interpreting comparative effectiveness trials. Our objective was to generate MCID estimates for three postoperative recovery metrics. METHODS: Prospectively collected data on two cohorts of 281 and 130 adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery were analyzed. At each of three visits, patients had completed the 36-Item Short Form Survey from the RAND Medical Outcomes Study (SF-36) and either Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) or the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). The MCID was estimated with an anchor-based approach with random effects linear regression models. Patients' rating of their own health was used to predict SF-36 domain, CHAMPS, and 6MWT scores. Results are reported as MCID (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: On the SF-36 domains analyzed, MCIDs were consistently smaller for patients rating their health as "excellent" or "very good" (from 8 [6-9] to 15 [12-18]) compared with those for patients rating their health as "fair" or "poor" (from 15 [12-19] to 32 [28-36]). For CHAMPS, the MCID was 8 kcal/kg/week (7-9), and for the 6MWT, 14 meters (9-18). CONCLUSION: Plausible MCIDs and ranges around each estimate are provided. These values should be considered when planning and interpreting abdominal surgery clinical trials where patient-reported outcomes are assessed.
BACKGROUND: Surgical innovations are introduced to improve "recovery," a complex construct often operationalized by the use of patient-reported outcomes. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in an outcome sufficiently important to influence management and is crucial for designing and interpreting comparative effectiveness trials. Our objective was to generate MCID estimates for three postoperative recovery metrics. METHODS: Prospectively collected data on two cohorts of 281 and 130 adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery were analyzed. At each of three visits, patients had completed the 36-Item Short Form Survey from the RAND Medical Outcomes Study (SF-36) and either Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) or the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). The MCID was estimated with an anchor-based approach with random effects linear regression models. Patients' rating of their own health was used to predict SF-36 domain, CHAMPS, and 6MWT scores. Results are reported as MCID (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: On the SF-36 domains analyzed, MCIDs were consistently smaller for patients rating their health as "excellent" or "very good" (from 8 [6-9] to 15 [12-18]) compared with those for patients rating their health as "fair" or "poor" (from 15 [12-19] to 32 [28-36]). For CHAMPS, the MCID was 8 kcal/kg/week (7-9), and for the 6MWT, 14 meters (9-18). CONCLUSION: Plausible MCIDs and ranges around each estimate are provided. These values should be considered when planning and interpreting abdominal surgery clinical trials where patient-reported outcomes are assessed.
Authors: Nicolò Pecorelli; Julio F Fiore; Chelsia Gillis; Rashami Awasthi; Benjamin Mappin-Kasirer; Petru Niculiseanu; Gerald M Fried; Francesco Carli; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Enrico M Minnella; Rashami Awasthi; Sarah-Eve Loiselle; Ramanakumar V Agnihotram; Lorenzo E Ferri; Francesco Carli Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Brian P Chen; Rashami Awasthi; Shane N Sweet; Enrico M Minnella; Andreas Bergdahl; Daniel Santa Mina; Francesco Carli; Celena Scheede-Bergdahl Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Mohsen Alhashemi; Mohammed Almahroos; Julio F Fiore; Pepa Kaneva; Juan Mata Gutierrez; Amy Neville; Melina C Vassiliou; Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Francesco Carli; Guillaume Bousquet-Dion; Rashami Awasthi; Noha Elsherbini; Sender Liberman; Marylise Boutros; Barry Stein; Patrick Charlebois; Gabriela Ghitulescu; Nancy Morin; Thomas Jagoe; Celena Scheede-Bergdahl; Enrico Maria Minnella; Julio F Fiore Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Nikhil Panda; Ian Solsky; Becky Hawrusik; Gang Liu; Harrison Reeder; Stuart Lipsitz; Eesha V Desai; Kurt W Lowery; Kate Miller; Michele A Gadd; Carrie C Lubitz; Barbara L Smith; Michelle Specht; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Alex B Haynes Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 5.344