Thomas J Wilkinson1, Emma L Watson, Soteris Xenophontos, Douglas W Gould, Alice C Smith. 1. From the Leicester Kidney Lifestyle Team, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, United Kingdom (TJW, ELW, SX, DWG, ACS); Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC), London, United Kingdom (DWG); and John Walls Renal Unit, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester Trust, United Kingdom (ACS).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chronic kidney disease patients are characterized by impaired physical function. The goal of exercise-based interventions is an improvement in functional performance. However, improvements are often determined by "statistically significant" changes. We investigated the "minimum clinically important difference," "the smallest change that is important to the patient," for commonly reported physical function tests. DESIGN: Nondialysis chronic kidney disease patients completed 12-wks of a combined aerobic (plus resistance training). The incremental shuttle walking test, sit-to-stand 5 and 60, estimated 1-repetition maximum for the knee extensors, and VO2peak were assessed. After the intervention, patients rated their perceived change in health. Both anchor- and distribution-based minimum clinically important difference approaches were calculated. RESULTS: The minimum clinically important difference was calculated as follows: incremental shuttle walking test, +45 m; sit-to-stand 5, -4.2 secs; VO2peak, +1.5 ml/kg per min. Because of comparable increases in "anchor" groups, no minimum clinically important difference was estimated for the sit-to-stand 60 or estimated 1-repetition maximum. CONCLUSIONS: We have established the minimum clinically important difference in chronic kidney disease for common tests of physical function. These values represent the minimum change required for patients to perceive noticeable and beneficial change to their health. These scores will help interpret changes after exercise interventions where these tests are used. These minimum clinically important differences can be used to power future studies to detect clinically important changes. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Define the "minimum clinically important difference"; (2) Distinguish between concepts of minimum clinically important difference, "minimal detectable change,", and "statistically significant change"; and (3) Interpret other study findings and their own results in the context of the minimum clinically important difference rather than statistically significant changes. LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
OBJECTIVE:Chronic kidney diseasepatients are characterized by impaired physical function. The goal of exercise-based interventions is an improvement in functional performance. However, improvements are often determined by "statistically significant" changes. We investigated the "minimum clinically important difference," "the smallest change that is important to the patient," for commonly reported physical function tests. DESIGN: Nondialysis chronic kidney diseasepatients completed 12-wks of a combined aerobic (plus resistance training). The incremental shuttle walking test, sit-to-stand 5 and 60, estimated 1-repetition maximum for the knee extensors, and VO2peak were assessed. After the intervention, patients rated their perceived change in health. Both anchor- and distribution-based minimum clinically important difference approaches were calculated. RESULTS: The minimum clinically important difference was calculated as follows: incremental shuttle walking test, +45 m; sit-to-stand 5, -4.2 secs; VO2peak, +1.5 ml/kg per min. Because of comparable increases in "anchor" groups, no minimum clinically important difference was estimated for the sit-to-stand 60 or estimated 1-repetition maximum. CONCLUSIONS: We have established the minimum clinically important difference in chronic kidney disease for common tests of physical function. These values represent the minimum change required for patients to perceive noticeable and beneficial change to their health. These scores will help interpret changes after exercise interventions where these tests are used. These minimum clinically important differences can be used to power future studies to detect clinically important changes. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Define the "minimum clinically important difference"; (2) Distinguish between concepts of minimum clinically important difference, "minimal detectable change,", and "statistically significant change"; and (3) Interpret other study findings and their own results in the context of the minimum clinically important difference rather than statistically significant changes. LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Authors: Hannah V Fletcher; Peter S P Cho; Stewart Lee Loong; Luis Estrada-Petrocelli; Amit S Patel; Surinder S Birring; Kai K Lee Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2020-11-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Amelie Bernier-Jean; Nadim A Beruni; Nicola P Bondonno; Gabrielle Williams; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Jonathan C Craig; Germaine Wong Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-12
Authors: Danielle L Kirkman; Natalie Bohmke; Salvatore Carbone; Ryan S Garten; Paula Rodriguez-Miguelez; Robert L Franco; Jason M Kidd; Antonio Abbate Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2020-12-07
Authors: Helge Hebestreit; Susi Kriemler; Christian Schindler; Lothar Stein; Chantal Karila; Don S Urquhart; David M Orenstein; Larry C Lands; Jonathan Schaeff; Ernst Eber; Thomas Radtke Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Marthley J C Costa; Frederico C B Cavalcanti; Shirley Dias Bezerra; José Candido de Araújo Filho; Juliana Fernandes; Patrícia E M Marinho Journal: J Bras Nefrol Date: 2022 Apr-Jun
Authors: María José Pérez-Sáez; Andrea Morgado-Pérez; Anna Faura; Elena Muñoz-Redondo; Miguel Gárriz; Maria Dolors Muns; Xavier Nogués; Ester Marco; Julio Pascual Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-05-19