Claire J Tipping1, Anne E Holland2, Meg Harrold3, Tom Crawford4, Nick Halliburton5, Carol L Hodgson6. 1. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Physiotherapy, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: c.tipping@alfred.org.au. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Latrobe University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: A.Holland@alfred.org.au. 3. Facility of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. Electronic address: M.Harrold@curtin.edu.au. 4. Department of Physiotherapy, The University Hospital Geelong, Geelong, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: tomc@barwonhealth.org.au. 5. Department of Physiotherapy, Ballarat Base Hospital, Ballarat, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: nick.halliburton@bhs.org.au. 6. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Physiotherapy, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: carol.hodgson@monash.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The intensive care unit mobility scale (IMS) is reliable, valid and responsive. Establishing the minimal important difference (MID) of the IMS is important in order to detect clinically significant changes in mobilization. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the MID of the IMS in intensive care unit patients. METHODS: Prospective multi center observational study. The IMS was collected from admission and discharge physiotherapy assessments. To calculate the MID we used; anchor based methods (global rating of change) and two distribution-based methods (standard error of the mean and effect size). RESULTS: We enrolled 184 adult patients; mean age 62.0 years, surgical, trauma, and medical. Anchor based methods gave a MID of 3 with area under the curve 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.97). The two distribution based methods gave a MID between 0.89 and 1.40. CONCLUSION: These data increase our understanding of the clinimetric properties of the IMS, improving its utility for clinical practice and research.
BACKGROUND: The intensive care unit mobility scale (IMS) is reliable, valid and responsive. Establishing the minimal important difference (MID) of the IMS is important in order to detect clinically significant changes in mobilization. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the MID of the IMS in intensive care unit patients. METHODS: Prospective multi center observational study. The IMS was collected from admission and discharge physiotherapy assessments. To calculate the MID we used; anchor based methods (global rating of change) and two distribution-based methods (standard error of the mean and effect size). RESULTS: We enrolled 184 adult patients; mean age 62.0 years, surgical, trauma, and medical. Anchor based methods gave a MID of 3 with area under the curve 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.97). The two distribution based methods gave a MID between 0.89 and 1.40. CONCLUSION: These data increase our understanding of the clinimetric properties of the IMS, improving its utility for clinical practice and research.