Michael M Ward1, Lori C Guthrie, Maria I Alba. 1. Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite wide use of the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) health survey in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), estimates of minimum clinically important improvement (MCII) for its scales are not well-established. We estimated MCIIs for SF-36 scales in patients with active RA. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal study, we studied 243 patients who had active RA and who completed the SF-36 before and after treatment escalation. We first assessed responsiveness with standardized response means (SRMs). For scales with adequate responsiveness (SRM ≥0.50), we used patient judgments of improvement in arthritis status as anchors for estimating MCIIs. We used receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to identify the MCIIs as the change associated with a specificity of 0.80 for improvement. RESULTS: Patients had substantial improvement in RA activity with treatment. However, among SF-36 scales, only the physical functioning and bodily pain scales and the physical component summary had adequate responsiveness. Using 0.80 specificity for improvement as the criterion, the MCIIs were 7.1 for the physical functioning scale, 4.9 for the bodily pain scale, and 7.2 for the physical component summary. CONCLUSION: Low responsiveness precluded estimation of valid MCIIs for many SF-36 scales in patients with RA, particularly the scales assessing mental health. Although the SF-36 has been included in many clinical trials to broaden the assessment of health status, low responsiveness limits the interpretation of changes in its mental health-related scales. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
OBJECTIVE: Despite wide use of the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) health survey in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), estimates of minimum clinically important improvement (MCII) for its scales are not well-established. We estimated MCIIs for SF-36 scales in patients with active RA. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal study, we studied 243 patients who had active RA and who completed the SF-36 before and after treatment escalation. We first assessed responsiveness with standardized response means (SRMs). For scales with adequate responsiveness (SRM ≥0.50), we used patient judgments of improvement in arthritis status as anchors for estimating MCIIs. We used receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to identify the MCIIs as the change associated with a specificity of 0.80 for improvement. RESULTS:Patients had substantial improvement in RA activity with treatment. However, among SF-36 scales, only the physical functioning and bodily pain scales and the physical component summary had adequate responsiveness. Using 0.80 specificity for improvement as the criterion, the MCIIs were 7.1 for the physical functioning scale, 4.9 for the bodily pain scale, and 7.2 for the physical component summary. CONCLUSION: Low responsiveness precluded estimation of valid MCIIs for many SF-36 scales in patients with RA, particularly the scales assessing mental health. Although the SF-36 has been included in many clinical trials to broaden the assessment of health status, low responsiveness limits the interpretation of changes in its mental health-related scales. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Dan Turner; Holger J Schünemann; Lauren E Griffith; Dorcas E Beaton; Anne M Griffiths; Jeffrey N Critch; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Vibeke Strand; Anne M Rentz; Mary A Cifaldi; Naijun Chen; Sanjoy Roy; Dennis Revicki Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: J S Smolen; F C Breedveld; M H Schiff; J R Kalden; P Emery; G Eberl; P L van Riel; P Tugwell Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: E Keystone; G R Burmester; R Furie; J E Loveless; P Emery; J Kremer; P P Tak; M S Broder; E Yu; M Cravets; F Magrini; F Jost Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-06-15
Authors: J H Coombs; B J Bloom; F C Breedveld; M P Fletcher; D Gruben; J M Kremer; R Burgos-Vargas; B Wilkinson; C A F Zerbini; S H Zwillich Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Peter M ten Klooster; Harald E Vonkeman; Erik Taal; Liseth Siemons; Lidy Hendriks; Alphons J L de Jong; Ellen A J Dutmer; Piet L C M van Riel; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Jennifer M T A Meessen; Marta Fiocco; Rutger L Tordoir; Arnout Sjer; Suzan H M Verdegaal; P Eline Slagboom; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland; Rob G H H Nelissen Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Dipak Kotecha; Karina V Bunting; Simrat K Gill; Samir Mehta; Mary Stanbury; Jacqueline C Jones; Sandra Haynes; Melanie J Calvert; Jonathan J Deeks; Richard P Steeds; Victoria Y Strauss; Kazem Rahimi; A John Camm; Michael Griffith; Gregory Y H Lip; Jonathan N Townend; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marquita S Gray; Suzanne E Judd; Richard Sloane; Denise C Snyder; Paige E Miller; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Samir Abou-Ayash; Nadine von Maltzahn; Nicole Passia; Sandra Freitag-Wolf; Daniel R Reissmann; Ralph G Luthardt; Torsten Mundt; Michael Raedel; Peter Rammelsberg; Stefan Wolfart; Matthias Kern Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Catherine Kim; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Vanita R Aroda; Kieren J Mather; Costas A Christophi; Edward S Horton; Xavier Pi-Sunyer; George A Bray; Fernand Labrie; Sherita Hill Golden Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Mary M McDermott; Bonnie Spring; Jeffrey S Berger; Diane Treat-Jacobson; Michael S Conte; Mark A Creager; Michael H Criqui; Luigi Ferrucci; Heather L Gornik; Jack M Guralnik; Elizabeth A Hahn; Peter Henke; Melina R Kibbe; Debra Kohlman-Trighoff; Lingyu Li; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Walter McCarthy; Tamar S Polonsky; Christopher Skelly; Lu Tian; Lihui Zhao; Dongxue Zhang; W Jack Rejeski Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 56.272