Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria

被引:384
作者
Schmitt, JS [1 ]
Di Fabio, RP [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Sch Med, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
关键词
responsiveness; minimum detectable change; minimal important difference; reliable change proportion; individual patient level; outcome measures; generic and specific;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.007
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: This study contrasted the use of responsiveness indices at the group level vs. individual patient level. Study Design and Setting: We followed a cohort of 211 patients (50% male; mean age 47.5 years; SD 14) with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems for a total of 3 months. Outcome measures included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), and the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12). We calculated confidence intervals on various group-level responsiveness statistics based on effect size and correlation with global change. The proportion of patients exceeding the minimum detectable change (or reliable change proportion) and minimum important difference (MID proportion) were included as indices applicable to the individual patient. Results: For the DASH, effect size ranged from 1.06 to 1.67 for various patient subgroups, and the reliable change and MID proportions indicated that 50%-70% of individuals exhibited change based on individual change scores. Only the SRM and reliable change proportion indicated differences among the outcome measures used in this study. Conclusion: The reliable change and MID proportions have an intuitive interpretation and facilitate quantitative responsiveness comparisons among outcome measures based on individual patient criteria. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1008 / 1018
页数:11
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]   Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires [J].
Beaton, D ;
Richards, RR .
JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 1998, 7 (06) :565-572
[2]  
Beaton D E, 2001, J Hand Ther, V14, P128
[3]   A taxonomy for responsiveness [J].
Beaton, DE ;
Bombardier, C ;
Katz, JN ;
Wright, JG .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2001, 54 (12) :1204-1217
[4]   Measuring function of the shoulder - A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires [J].
Beaton, DE ;
Richards, RR .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1996, 78A (06) :882-890
[5]   Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders [J].
Beaton, DE ;
HoggJohnson, S ;
Bombardier, C .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (01) :79-93
[6]   Calculating confidence intervals for the number needed to treat [J].
Bender, R .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 2001, 22 (02) :102-110
[7]  
Binkley JM, 1999, PHYS THER, V79, P371
[8]  
Cohen J., 1988, Statistical Power Analysisfor the Behavioral Sciences, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-179060-8.50006-2
[9]   Number needed to treat: A statistic relevant for physical therapists [J].
Dalton, GW ;
Keating, JL .
PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2000, 80 (12) :1214-1219
[10]   A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness [J].
Davidson, M ;
Keating, JL .
PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2002, 82 (01) :8-24