Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients

被引:223
作者
Hsieh, Yu-Wei
Wang, Chun-Hou
Wu, Shwu-Chong
Chen, Pau-Chung
Sheu, Ching-Fan
Hsieh, Ching-Lin
机构
[1] Natl Taiwan Univ, Coll Med, Sch Occupat Therapy, Taipei 100, Taiwan
[2] Chung Shan Med Univ, Coll Med Technol, Sch Phys Therapy, Taichung, Taiwan
[3] Natl Taiwan Univ, Coll Publ Hlth, Grad Inst Hlth Policy & Management, Taipei 100, Taiwan
[4] Natl Taiwan Univ, Coll Publ Hlth, Inst Occupat Med & Ind Hyg, Taipei 100, Taiwan
[5] Natl Cheng Kung Univ, Inst Cognit Sci, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
[6] Natl Taiwan Univ Hosp, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, Taipei, Taiwan
关键词
minimal clinically important differcnce; Barthel Index; stroke;
D O I
10.1177/1545968306294729
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. The interpretation of the change scores of the Barthel Index (BI) in follow-up or outcome studies has been hampered by the fact that its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been determined. Objective. This article was written to establish the MCID of the BI in stroke patients. Methods. Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to establish the MCID. In the anchor-based method, 43 stroke inpatients participated in a follow-up study designed to determine the MCID of the BI using patients' global ratings of the activities of daily living function on a 15-point Likert-type scale. The mean change scores on the 20-point scale of the BI of the MCID group, based on the patients' ratings on the Likert-type scale, served as the first estimate of the MCID. In the distribution-based method, 56 chronic stroke patients participated in the test-retest reliability study to determine the MCID of the BI. One standard error of measurement (SEM) served as the second estimate for the MCID. The larger MCID value of the 2 estimates was chosen as the MCID of the BI. Results. In the anchor-based study, there were 20 patients in the MCID group, with a mean change score of 1.85 points (ie, the first MCID estimate). In the distribution-based study, the SEM based on test-retest agreement was 1.45 points (ie, the second MCID estimate). The MCID of the BI in stroke patients was estimated to be 1.85 points. Conclusion. The authors' results, within the limitations of their design, suggest that if the mean BI change score within a stroke group has reached 1.85 points in a study, the chance score on the BI can be perceived by patients as important and beyond measurement error (ie, such a change score is clinically important).
引用
收藏
页码:233 / 238
页数:6
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research [J].
Beaton, DE ;
Boers, M ;
Wells, GA .
CURRENT OPINION IN RHEUMATOLOGY, 2002, 14 (02) :109-114
[2]   Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness [J].
Beckerman, H ;
Roebroeck, ME ;
Lankhorst, GJ ;
Becher, JG ;
Bezemer, PD ;
Verbeek, ALM .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2001, 10 (07) :571-578
[3]  
Brealey S, 2004, J RHEUMATOL, V31, P1026
[4]  
Cohen J., 1988, POWERSTATISTICALSCIE, DOI 10.4324/9780203771587
[5]  
Collin C, 1988, Int Disabil Stud, V10, P61
[6]   Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life [J].
Crosby, RD ;
Kolotkin, RL ;
Williams, GR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 56 (05) :395-407
[7]   Current challenges in clinimetrics [J].
de Vet, HCW ;
Terwee, CB ;
Bouter, LM .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 56 (12) :1137-1141
[8]   SAMPLE-SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIABILITY STUDIES [J].
DONNER, A ;
ELIASZIW, M .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1987, 6 (04) :441-448
[9]   What change in isokinetic knee muscle strength can be detected in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke? [J].
Flansbjer, UB ;
Holmbäck, AM ;
Downham, D ;
Lexell, J .
CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 2005, 19 (05) :514-522
[10]   Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke [J].
Flansbjer, UB ;
Holmbäck, AM ;
Downham, D ;
Patten, C ;
Lexell, J .
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2005, 37 (02) :75-82