Literature DB >> 31625400

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference for PROMIS Physical Function in Patients With Thumb Carpometacarpal Arthritis.

Daniel J Lee1, Ryan P Calfee1.   

Abstract

Background: This study was performed to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT) for patients with thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthritis.
Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from 152 adults receiving surgical and nonsurgical care for unilateral thumb CMC arthritis at a single institution between January 2016 and January 2018. Patients completed PROMIS PF v1.2/2.0 CAT at each visit. At follow-up, patients also completed two 6-item anchor questions assessing the degree of perceived improvement. Statistical testing analyzed the ability of the clinical anchor to discriminate levels of improvement. An anchor-based MCID estimate was calculated as the mean PROMIS PF change score in the mild improvement group. The anchor-based MCID value was examined for the influence of patient age, initial and final PROMIS scores, and follow-up interval. A distribution-based MCID value was calculated incorporating the standard error of measurement and effect size.
Results: The change in PROMIS PF scores was significantly different between encounters where patients reported no change, mild improvement, and much improvement. The anchor-based MCID estimate for PROMIS PF was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 3.3-4.7). Individual MCID values were weakly correlated with the final absolute PROMIS PF score but did not correlate with patient age, time between visits, or the initial absolute PROMIS PF score. The distribution-based MCID value was 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 3.1-3.9). Conclusions: The estimated range of MCID values for PROMIS PF is 3.5 to 3.9 points in patients treated for thumb CMC arthritis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MCID; PROMIS; anatomy; arthritis; diagnosis; minimal difference; thumb

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31625400      PMCID: PMC8461193          DOI: 10.1177/1558944719880025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hand (N Y)        ISSN: 1558-9447


  31 in total

Review 1.  Predictors of surgical outcomes following anterior transposition of ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome: a systematic review.

Authors:  Qiyun Shi; Joy C MacDermid; P Lina Santaguida; Hmwe Hmwe Kyu
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.230

Review 2.  Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30.

Authors:  Kim Cocks; Madeleine T King; Galina Velikova; Marrissa Martyn St-James; Peter M Fayers; Julia M Brown
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods.

Authors:  Madeleine T King
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.217

4.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference for PROMIS Physical Function in Patients With Distal Radius Fractures.

Authors:  Brinkley Sandvall; Ugochi C Okoroafor; William Gerull; Jason Guattery; Ryan P Calfee
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 2.230

5.  Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease.

Authors:  Robert Z Tashjian; Julia Deloach; Andrew Green; Christina A Porucznik; Amy P Powell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  The PROMIS physical function correlates with the QuickDASH in patients with upper extremity illness.

Authors:  Celeste L Overbeek; Sjoerd P F T Nota; Prakash Jayakumar; Michiel G Hageman; David Ring
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Determining the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire minimal clinically important difference by means of three methods.

Authors:  Daniel A London; Jeffrey G Stepan; Ryan P Calfee
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  The minimal clinically important difference after simple decompression for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.

Authors:  Sunitha Malay; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 2.230

9.  Minimally important differences for Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference for individuals with back pain.

Authors:  Dagmar Amtmann; Jiseon Kim; Hyewon Chung; Robert L Askew; Ryoungsun Park; Karon F Cook
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 3.133

10.  Patient reported outcomes - experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting.

Authors:  Joshua Biber; Dominik Ose; Jenny Reese; Anna Gardiner; Julio Facelli; Joshua Spuhl; Darrel Brodke; Vivian S Lee; Rachel Hess; Howard Weeks
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2018-08-17
View more
  7 in total

1.  Depression and Anxiety Screening Identifies Patients That may Benefit From Treatment Regardless of Existing Diagnoses.

Authors:  Brandon Lippold; Yash R Tarkunde; Abby L Cheng; Charles P Hannon; Muyibat A Adelani; Ryan P Calfee
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2022-03-02

2.  Establishing the Substantial Clinical Benefit in a Non-Shoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population for the QuickDASH and PROMIS Upper Extremity and Physical Function Computer Adaptive Tests.

Authors:  James C Hubbard; Yue Zhang; Yuqing Qiu; Minkyoung Yoo; Andrew R Stephens; Michelle Zeidan; Nikolas H Kazmers
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  How Do PROMIS Scores Correspond to Common Physical Abilities?

Authors:  Dane J Brodke; Chong Zhang; Jeremy D Shaw; Amy M Cizik; Charles L Saltzman; Darrel S Brodke
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0 in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population.

Authors:  Nikolas H Kazmers; Yuqing Qiu; Minkyoung Yoo; Andrew R Stephens; Michelle Zeidan; Yue Zhang
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  The minimal clinically important difference of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function and upper extremity computer adaptive tests and QuickDASH in the setting of elbow trauma.

Authors:  Dustin J Randall; Yue Zhang; Andrew P Harris; Yuqing Qiu; Haojia Li; Andrew R Stephens; Nikolas H Kazmers
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-08-08

6.  Evaluation of PROMIS Scores 6 Weeks after Conservative Management of Carpometacarpal Thumb Arthritis.

Authors:  Amy Phan; Thais Calderon; Warren C Hammert
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-10-07

Review 7.  Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures.

Authors:  Caroline B Terwee; John Devin Peipert; Robert Chapman; Jin-Shei Lai; Berend Terluin; David Cella; Philip Griffith; Lidwine B Mokkink
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 4.147

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.