Reliability and Minimum Important Difference of Sputum Weight in Bronchiectasis

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (10) ◽  
pp. 1478-1487
Author(s):  
Beatriz Herrero-Cortina ◽  
Victoria Alcaraz-Serrano ◽  
Antoni Torres ◽  
Eva Polverino
Keyword(s):  
Minimum Important Difference

scholarly journals Estimating the minimum important difference in the DEMQOL instrument in people with dementia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen C. Lee ◽  
Jessica Wright ◽  
Stephen J. Walters ◽  
Cindy L. Cooper ◽  
Gail A. Mountain
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Minimum Important Difference ◽  
Absolute Change ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Purpose The Dementia-Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL) measure and the DEMQOL-Utility Score (DEMQOL-U) are validated tools for measuring quality of life (QOL) in people with dementia. What score changes translate to a clinically significant impact on patients’ lives was unknown. This study establishes the minimal important differences (MID) for these two instruments. Methods Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MID scores from patients enrolled in a randomised controlled trial. For the anchor-based method, the global QOL (Q29) item from the DEMQOL was chosen as the anchor for DEMQOL and both Q29 and EQ-5D for DEMQOL-U. A one category difference in Q29, and a 0.07 point difference in EQ-5D score, were used to classify improvement and deterioration, and the MID scores were calculated for each category. These results were compared with scores obtained by the distribution-based methods. Results A total of 490 people with dementia had baseline DEMQOL data, of these 386 had 8-month data, and 344 had 12-month DEMQOL data. The absolute change in DEMQOL for a combined 1-point increase or decrease in the Q29 anchor was 5.2 at 8 months and 6.0 at 12 months. For the DEMQOL-U, the average absolute change at 8 and 12 months was 0.032 and 0.046 for the Q29 anchor and 0.020 and 0.024 for EQ-5D anchor. Conclusion We present MID scores for the DEMQOL and DEMQOL-U instruments obtained from a large cohort of patients with dementia. An anchored-based estimate of the MID for the DEMQOL is around 5 to 6 points; and 0.02 to 0.05 points for the DEMQOL-U. The results of this study can guide clinicians and researchers in the interpretation of these instruments comparisons between groups or within groups of people with dementia. Trial Registration Number and date of registration: ISRCTN17993825 on 11th October 2016.

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AND DISABILITY IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (11) ◽  
pp. e4.32-e4
Author(s):  
Neil Scolding ◽  
Hongwei Wang ◽  
Yan Liu ◽  
Lawrence Steinman
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Minimum Important Difference ◽  
Point Change ◽  
Clinical Difference ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Edss Score ◽  
Multiple Sclerosis Patients

In the 2-year, phase 3 CARE-MS II study (NCT00548405), alemtuzumab demonstrated superior clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) over subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients who had inadequate efficacy response to prior therapy. To further evaluate the relationship between PROs and disability, Short-Form 36-Item (SF-36) survey physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), and Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis (FAMS) scores were analysed against Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) outcomes, adjusted for baseline characteristics and randomisation arm. A 1.0-point difference in baseline EDSS score was associated with 2.0-point PCS, 0.8-point MCS, and 4.0-point FAMS worsening over 12 months (all P<0.001). A 1.0-point annualised EDSS score worsening corresponded to a 2.2-point PCS, 1.6-point MCS, and 6.0-point FAMS worsening (all P<0.001). For baseline EDSS score <4.0, 1.0-point annualised worsening was associated with 7.2-point FAMS and 2.0-point MCS worsening (both P<0.001). For baseline EDSS score ≥4.0, 1.0-point worsening corresponded to worsening on FAMS (2.4 points; P=0.04), but not MCS (P=0.82). Given that a half-point EDSS change is considered the minimum reliably measurable clinical difference, a 1.0-point change in SF-36 PCS and MCS or 3.0-point change in FAMS may represent a minimum important difference in PRO for multiple sclerosis patients.

scholarly journals Unravelling the mystery of the ‘minimum important difference’ using practical outcome measures in chronic respiratory disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 147997311881649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linzy Houchen-Wolloff ◽  
Rachael A Evans
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Chronic Respiratory Disease ◽  
Important Change ◽  
P Value ◽  
Minimum Important Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Functional Outcome Measures

It is important for clinicians and researchers to understand the effects of treatments on their patients, both at an individual and group level. In clinical studies, treatment effects are often reported as a change in the outcome measure supported by a measure of variability; for example, the mean change with 95% confidence intervals and a probability ( p) value to indicate the level of statistical significance. However, a statistically significant change may not indicate a clinically meaningful or important change for clinicians or patients to interpret. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or minimally important difference (MID) has therefore been developed to add clinical relevance or patient experience to the reporting of an outcome measure. In this article, we consider the concept of the MID using the example of practical outcome measures in patients with CRD. We describe the various ways in which an MID can be calculated via anchor- and distribution-based methods, looking at practical examples and considering the importance of understanding how an MID was derived when seeking to apply it to a particular situation. The terms MID and MCID are challenging and often used interchangeably. However, we propose all MIDs are described as such, but they could be qualified by a suffix: MIDS (MID – Statistical), MID-C (MID – Clinical outcome), MID-P (MID – Patient determined). However, this type of classification would only work if accepted and adopted. In the meantime, we advise clinicians and researchers to use an MID where possible to aid their interpretation of functional outcome measures and effects of interventions, to add meaning above statistical significance alone.

scholarly journals ‘It’s Not Just Music, It Helps You from Inside’: Mixing Methods to Understand the Impact of Music on Young People in Contact With the Criminal Justice System

Youth Justice ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 147322542093815
Author(s):  
Laura Caulfield ◽  
Andrew Jolly ◽  
Ella Simpson ◽  
Yasmin Devi-McGleish
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Young People ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Musical Ability ◽  
Minimum Important Difference ◽  
The Arts ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Depth Interviews

In response to some of the criticisms of previous research into the arts in criminal justice, this article presents findings from research with a music programme run by a Youth Offending team (YOT). Data were collected on the attendance of 42 participants at YOT appointments – matched against a comparison group – and measures of change over time in musical development, attitudes and behaviour and well-being. Participants who completed the music programme were statistically more likely to attend YOT appointments than a comparison group. There were statistically significant improvements in participants’ self-reported well-being and musical ability over the course of the project. Effect sizes reached the minimum important difference for quantitative measures. To understand not just if, but how, any impact was achieved, and to ensure the voice of the young people was heard, the quantitative elements of the research were complemented and extended by in-depth interviews with 23 participants.

scholarly journals Validation and minimum important difference of the UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire in fibrotic interstitial lung disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Chen ◽  
Amy Po Yu Tsai ◽  
Seo Am Hur ◽  
Alyson W. Wong ◽  
Mohsen Sadatsafavi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interstitial Lung Disease ◽  
Lung Disease ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Shortness Of Breath ◽  
Minimum Important Difference ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
St George's Respiratory Questionnaire ◽  
High Level ◽  
The University ◽  
Eq Vas

Abstract Rationale The University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSDSOBQ) is a frequently used domain-specific dyspnea questionnaire; however, there is little information available regarding its use and minimum important difference (MID) in fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). We aimed to describe the key performance characteristics of the UCSDSOBQ in this population. Methods UCSDSOBQ scores and selected anchors were measured in 1933 patients from the prospective multi-center Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis. Anchors included the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Levels questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), percent-predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO%), and 6-min walk distance (6MWD). Concurrent validity, internal consistency, ceiling and floor effects, and responsiveness were assessed, followed by estimation of the MID by anchor-based (linear regression) and distribution-based methods (standard error of measurement). Results The UCSDSOBQ had a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97), no obvious floor or ceiling effect, strong correlations with SGRQ, EQ-5D-5L, and EQ-VAS (|r| > 0.5), and moderate correlations with FVC%, DLCO%, and 6MWD (0.3 < |r| < 0.5). The MID estimate for UCSDSOBQ was 5 points (1–8) for the anchor-based method, and 4.5 points for the distribution-based method. Conclusion This study demonstrates the validity of UCSDSOBQ in a large and heterogeneous population of patients with fibrotic ILD, and provides a robust MID estimate of 5–8 points.

Improving patient reported outcomes in total hip replacement and total knee replacement: What can we learn from the “best” and the “poorest” performing sites?

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Thomas W Wainwright ◽  
Kieran Gallagher ◽  
Athanasios Polllalis ◽  
Tikki Immins ◽  
Robert G Middleton
Keyword(s):  
Knee Replacement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Control Limit ◽  
Minimum Important Difference ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Full Picture ◽  
The Difference

Introduction: Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) are being collected as part of the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) evaluation programme on total hip and knee replacement. This study compares the PROMs outcomes from best and poorest performing English hospitals, as defined by NHS England’s data of elective hip and knee surgery. This was to quantify the difference and identify the scope for improvement.Materials and Methods: OHS and OKS were obtained from the Health and Social Care Information Centre for April 2013 to March 2014.Results: Seven sites for OHS and 10 sites for OKS were above the upper 95% control limit. Fourteen sites for OHS and 10 sites for OKS were below the lower 95% control limit. Median pre-operative scores were similar between best and poorest performers. Median post-operative scores were 4 points higher in best performers. Top OHS-performers scored better in limping, stairs, work, transport, dressing and shopping. Top OKS-performers scored better in walking, shopping and kneeling.Discussion: Pre-operative scores were similar for the best and poorest performers. The differences between best  and poorest performing hospitals for OHS and OKS were below the minimum important difference. There was only moderate consistency for outliers. Results for any single year should be treated with caution.Conclusions: PROMs, one of many key tools in measuring and increasing person-centered healthcare, can be useful as part of an evaluation of practice but do not always reveal the full picture. It is important that balanced measures of quality should be used when benchmarking hospitals.

scholarly journals Minimum important difference for validated instruments in women with urge incontinence

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 1319-1324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keisha Y. Dyer ◽  
Yan Xu ◽  
Linda Brubaker ◽  
Ingrid Nygaard ◽  
Alayne Markland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urge Incontinence ◽  
Minimum Important Difference
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document