Literature DB >> 25769795

Domain-specific transition questions demonstrated higher validity than global transition questions as anchors for clinically important improvement.

Michael M Ward1, Lori C Guthrie2, Maria Alba2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Estimates of minimal clinically important differences in health measures may be affected by the anchor used. We examined if domain-specific transition questions had higher construct validity than global health transition questions as anchors for measures in a given domain. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: In a prospective study of 249 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, we examined changes in pain, physical function, joint swelling, stiffness, fatigue, and depression with treatment. We related these changes to a domain-specific transition question, global arthritis transition question, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health transition item.
RESULTS: Changes in all six clinical measures were more highly correlated with the domain-specific transition questions than with the global arthritis question and SF-36 transition question. Discrimination between patients who improved or not was also better using domain-specific questions. Estimates of minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) differed with the anchor when these were based on mean changes. MCII estimates from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were not influenced by the choice of anchor when anchors had high agreement.
CONCLUSION: Domain-specific transition questions had higher construct validity as anchors for determining clinically important differences in health measures focused on a single domain than either global disease or general health transition questions. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anchor-based methods; Clinically important difference; Outcome measures; Pain; Physical function; Rheumatoid arthritis; Transition questions

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25769795      PMCID: PMC4420680          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.028

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


  20 in total

1.  Single-change items did not measure change in quality of life.

Authors:  Adam J Rose; Naomi C Sacks; Abhijit P Deshpande; Shanta Y Griffin; Howard J Cabral; Lewis E Kazis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease.

Authors:  Scott L Parker; Stephen K Mendenhall; David Shau; Owoicho Adogwa; Joseph S Cheng; William N Anderson; Clinton J Devin; Matthew J McGirt
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2011-09-30

3.  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

Review 4.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; David Osoba; Albert W Wu; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

5.  Identification of clinically important changes in health status using receiver operating characteristic curves.

Authors:  M M Ward; A S Marx; N N Barry
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-03-01       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Total knee replacement; minimal clinically important differences and responders.

Authors:  A Escobar; L García Pérez; C Herrera-Espiñeira; F Aizpuru; C Sarasqueta; M Gonzalez Sáenz de Tejada; J M Quintana; A Bilbao
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 6.576

7.  Identification of cutpoints for acceptable health status and important improvement in patient-reported outcomes, in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

Authors:  Maria Knoph Kvamme; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Elisabeth Lie; Tore Kristian Kvien
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 4.666

8.  Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Steven D Glassman; Brian R Subach; Sigurd Berven; Thomas C Schuler; Leah Y Carreon
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008-01-16       Impact factor: 4.166

9.  Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status.

Authors:  Steven J Kamper; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Dirk L Knol; Christopher G Maher; Henrica C W de Vet; Mark J Hancock
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-01-08       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  The minimally important difference for patient reported outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus including the HAQ-DI, pain, fatigue, and SF-36.

Authors:  Kim J Colangelo; Janet E Pope; Christine Peschken
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 4.666

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Favian Su; Sachin Allahabadi; Dale N Bongbong; Brian T Feeley; Drew A Lansdown
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2021-01-12

2.  The value of patient global assessment in lumbar spine surgery: an evaluation based on more than 90,000 patients.

Authors:  C Parai; O Hägg; B Lind; H Brisby
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient-Acceptable Symptomatic State after Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Justin M Walsh; Hailey P Huddleston; Mohamad M Alzein; Stephanie E Wong; Brian Forsythe; Nikhil N Verma; Brian J Cole; Adam B Yanke
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2022-02-05

4.  Testing the construct validity of a health transition question using vignette-guided patient ratings of health.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Jinxiang Hu; Lori C Guthrie; Maria Alba
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 3.186

5.  Quality of life and influencing factors of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Northeast China.

Authors:  Bingqing Bai; Meng Chen; Lingyu Fu; Haina Liu; Lei Jin; Tingting Wei; Fangran Xin
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 6.  Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures-a systematic review.

Authors:  Åsa Nordin; Charles Taft; Åsa Lundgren-Nilsson; Anna Dencker
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Responsiveness and minimal important change of the QuickDASH and PSFS when used among patients with shoulder pain.

Authors:  Tarjei Rysstad; Margreth Grotle; Lars Petter Klokk; Anne Therese Tveter
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 2.362

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.