Rebecca G Rogers1,2, Carla M Bann3, Matthew D Barber4,5, Pamela Fairchild6, Emily S Lukacz7, Lily Arya8, Alayne D Markland9, Nazema Y Siddiqui4, Vivian W Sung10. 1. Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, 1501 Red River Street, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. Rebecca.rogers@austin.utexas.edu. 2. University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA. Rebecca.rogers@austin.utexas.edu. 3. Division of Statistical and Data Sciences, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Obstetrics Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Magee-Women's Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 7. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Birmingham/Atlanta Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Birmingham, AL, USA. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We describe the responsiveness and minimally important difference (MID) of the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation (ABLE) questionnaire. METHODS: Women with bowel leakage completed ABLE, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, Colo-Rectal Anal Distress Inventory, and Vaizey questionnaires pretreatment and again at 24 weeks post-treatment. Change scores were correlated between questionnaires. Student's t tests compared ABLE change scores for improved versus not improved based on other measures. The MID was determined by anchor- and distribution-based approaches. RESULTS: In 266 women, the mean age was 63.75 (SD = 11.14) and 79% were white. Mean baseline ABLE scores were 2.32 ± 0.56 (possible range 1-5) with a reduction of 0.62 (SD = 0.79) by 24 weeks. ABLE change scores correlated with related measures change scores (r = 0.24 to 0.53) and differed between women who improved and did not improve (all p < 0.001). Standardized response means for participants who improved were large ranging from -0.89 to -1.12. Distribution-based methods suggest a MID of -0.19 based on the criterion of one SEM and -0.28 based on half a standard deviation. Anchor-based MIDs ranged from -0.10 to -0.45. We recommend a MID of -0.20. CONCLUSIONS: The ABLE questionnaire is responsive to change, with a suggested MID of -0.20.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We describe the responsiveness and minimally important difference (MID) of the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation (ABLE) questionnaire. METHODS: Women with bowel leakage completed ABLE, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, Colo-Rectal Anal Distress Inventory, and Vaizey questionnaires pretreatment and again at 24 weeks post-treatment. Change scores were correlated between questionnaires. Student's t tests compared ABLE change scores for improved versus not improved based on other measures. The MID was determined by anchor- and distribution-based approaches. RESULTS: In 266 women, the mean age was 63.75 (SD = 11.14) and 79% were white. Mean baseline ABLE scores were 2.32 ± 0.56 (possible range 1-5) with a reduction of 0.62 (SD = 0.79) by 24 weeks. ABLE change scores correlated with related measures change scores (r = 0.24 to 0.53) and differed between women who improved and did not improve (all p < 0.001). Standardized response means for participants who improved were large ranging from -0.89 to -1.12. Distribution-based methods suggest a MID of -0.19 based on the criterion of one SEM and -0.28 based on half a standard deviation. Anchor-based MIDs ranged from -0.10 to -0.45. We recommend a MID of -0.20. CONCLUSIONS: The ABLE questionnaire is responsive to change, with a suggested MID of -0.20.
Authors: John T Wei; Rodney Dunn; Ingrid Nygaard; Kathryn Burgio; Emily S Lukacz; Alayne Markland; Patricia A Wren; Linda Brubaker; Matthew D Barber; J Eric Jelovsek; Cathie Spino; Susie Meikle; Nancy Janz Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2017 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Adil E Bharucha; Charles H Knowles; Isabelle Mack; Allison Malcolm; Nicholas Oblizajek; Satish Rao; S Mark Scott; Andrea Shin; Paul Enck Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 65.038