Literature DB >> 33676417

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

Kari Kanto1, Tuomas Lähdeoja2, Mika Paavola2, Pasi Aronen3, Teppo L N Järvinen2, Jarkko Jokihaara4, Clare L Ardern5, Teemu V Karjalainen6, Simo Taimela7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The results of clinical trials should be assessed for both statistical significance and importance of observed effects to patients. Minimal important difference (MID) is a threshold denoting a difference that is important to patients. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a threshold above which patients feel well.
OBJECTIVE: To determine MID and PASS for common outcome instruments in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS).
METHODS: We used data from the FIMPACT trial, a randomised controlled trial of treatment for SAPS that included 193 patients. The outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity, both measured with the 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), the Constant-Murley score (CS), and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). The transition question was a five-point global rating of change. We used three anchor-based methods to determine the MID for improvement: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change and the mean change methods. For the PASS, we used the ROC and 75th percentile methods and calculated estimates using two different anchor question thresholds.
RESULTS: Different MID methods yielded different estimates. The ROC method yielded the smallest estimates for MID: 20 mm for shoulder pain on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST, with good to excellent discrimination (areas under curve (AUCs) from 0.86 to 0.94). We could not establish a reliable MID for pain at rest. The PASS estimates were consistent between methods. The ROC method PASS thresholds using a conservative anchor question threshold were 2 mm for pain at rest, 9 mm for pain on activity, 80 points for CS and 11 points for SST, with AUCs from 0.74 to 0.83.
CONCLUSION: We recommend the smallest estimate from different methods as the MID, because it is very unlikely that changes smaller than the smallest MID estimate are important to patients: 20 mm for pain VAS on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST. We recommend PASS estimates of 9 mm for pain on arm activity, 80 points for CS, and 11 points for SST. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00428870 (first registered January 29, 2007).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinimetrics, minimal important change, MID, MCID, patient accepted symptom state, PASS, responsiveness; Constant-Murley score; Outcome measures; Pain; Simple shoulder test; Subacromial pain; Visual analogue scale (VAS)

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33676417      PMCID: PMC7937213          DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01241-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol        ISSN: 1471-2288            Impact factor:   4.615


  35 in total

1.  Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference.

Authors:  Dan Turner; Holger J Schünemann; Lauren E Griffith; Dorcas E Beaton; Anne M Griffiths; Jeffrey N Critch; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; J Singer; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-12

3.  Mind the methods of determining minimal important differences: three critical issues to consider.

Authors:  Tahira Devji; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  Evid Based Ment Health       Date:  2020-08-24

4.  Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale.

Authors:  John T Farrar; James P Young; Linda LaMoreaux; John L Werth; Michael R Poole
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 6.961

5.  A comparison of 3 methodological approaches to defining major clinically important improvement of 4 performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Alexis A Wright; Chad E Cook; G David Baxter; John D Dockerty; J Haxby Abbott
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2011-02-18       Impact factor: 4.751

6.  Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease.

Authors:  Robert Z Tashjian; Julia Deloach; Christina A Porucznik; Amy P Powell
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 3.019

7.  Examining the Minimal Important Difference of Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Model Using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.

Authors:  Kathryn A G Mills; Justine M Naylor; Jillian P Eyles; Ewa M Roos; David J Hunter
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 4.666

8.  Patient self-assessment of health status and function in glenohumeral degenerative joint disease.

Authors:  F A Matsen; D W Ziegler; S E DeBartolo
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  1995 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.019

9.  Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally: the forgotten lesson of pythagoras. theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status.

Authors:  Robert Froud; Gary Abel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  An overview of using qualitative techniques to explore and define estimates of clinically important change on clinical outcome assessments.

Authors:  Hannah Staunton; Tom Willgoss; Linda Nelsen; Claire Burbridge; Kate Sully; Diana Rofail; Rob Arbuckle
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2019-03-04
View more
  3 in total

1.  Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit for the Pain Visual Analog Scale in a Postoperative Hand Surgery Population.

Authors:  Dustin J Randall; Yue Zhang; Haojia Li; James C Hubbard; Nikolas H Kazmers
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 2.342

2.  Comprehensive supervised heavy training program versus home training regimen in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Pierre Schydlowsky; Marcin Szkudlarek; Ole Rintek Madsen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-15       Impact factor: 2.362

3.  Analysis of Efficacy, Complications, and Inflammatory Reactions of Bridge Combined Internal Fixation System for Periarticular Fractures of the Shoulder.

Authors:  Haiyun Xu; Youliang Fan; Jiajun Lu; Yixiong Wu; Xiaoguang Feng
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 2.809

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.