scholarly journals Determining the minimal clinically important difference of the hand function sort questionnaire in vocational rehabilitation

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zineb Benhissen ◽  
Michel Konzelmann ◽  
Philippe Vuistiner ◽  
Bertrand Léger ◽  
François Luthi ◽  
...  

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samar Hmaied Assadi ◽  
Haim Barel ◽  
Israel Dudkiewicz ◽  
Revital Feige Gross-Nevo ◽  
Debbie Rand

Background and Purpose: The upper extremity (UE) ipsilateral to the brain lesion is mildly affected poststroke. It is unclear whether patients perceive this, and the association between less-affected hand function and independence in activities of daily living (ADL) is unknown. We aimed to (1) assess longitudinal changes in function, dexterity, grip strength, and self-perception of the less-affected UE, (2) compare them to the normative data, and (3) determine the association of both UEs to ADL during the first 6 months poststroke. Methods: Consecutive adults following a first stroke were assessed on rehabilitation admission (T1), 6 weeks (T2), and 6 months (T3) poststroke onset. Box and block test assessed function of both UEs. The functional dexterity test (FDT) and Jamar Dynamometer assessed dexterity and grip strength of the less-affected UE. The functional independence measure assessed ADL, and instrumental ADL was assessed at T3. Spearman correlations and multiple regression models were used. Results: Participants were assessed at T1 (N=87), T2 (N=82), and T3 (N=68). At T1, less-affected UE deficits were apparent (median [interquartile range] box and block test-45 [35–53] blocks, FDT-44.5 [33.3–60.8] seconds, grip-25.5 [16.2–33.9] kilograms), but only 19.5% of the participants self-perceived this. Less-affected hand function significantly improved with 32% and 33% achieving a minimal clinically important difference for box and block test at T2 and T3, respectively. Dexterity improved significantly between T1 and T2 ( P <0.001, no established minimal clinically important difference) and grip strength improved significantly between T2 and T3; 3.4% achieving a minimal clinically important difference ( P <0.01). At T3, most participants did not reach the norms (box and block test-67.4 blocks, FDT-32.2 seconds, grip-40.5 kilograms). Both the less- and more-affected UEs explained a large portion of the variance of ADL at all time-points, after controlling for age, days-since-stroke-onset, stroke type, and cognition. Conclusions: Despite some improvement, the less-affected UE at 6 months poststroke remained below norms, explaining difficulties in ADL and instrumental ADL. Further research is needed.



2021 ◽  
pp. 026921552110251
Author(s):  
Marla K Beauchamp ◽  
Rudy Niebuhr ◽  
Patricia Roche ◽  
Renata Kirkwood ◽  
Kathryn M Sibley

Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important difference of the Mini-BESTest in individuals’ post-stroke. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Outpatient stroke rehabilitation. Subjects: Fifty outpatients with stroke with a mean (SD) age of 60.8 (9.4). Intervention: Outpatients with stroke were assessed with the Mini-BESTest before and after a course of conventional rehabilitation. Rehabilitation sessions occurred one to two times/week for one hour and treatment duration was 1.3–42 weeks (mean (SD) = 17.4(10.6)). Main measures: We used a combination of anchor- and distribution-based approaches including a global rating of change in balance scale completed by physiotherapists and patients, the minimal detectable change with 95% confidence, and the optimal cut-point from receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: The average (SD) Mini-BESTest score at admission was 18.2 (6.5) and 22.4 (5.2) at discharge (effect size: 0.7) ( P = 0.001). Mean change scores on the Mini-BESTest for patient and physiotherapist ratings of small change were 4.2 and 4.3 points, and 4.7 and 5.3 points for substantial change, respectively. The minimal detectable change with 95% confidence for the Mini-BESTest was 3.2 points. The minimally clinical importance difference was determined to be 4 points for detecting small changes and 5 points for detecting substantial changes. Conclusions: A change of 4–5 points on the Mini-BEST is required to be perceptible to clinicians and patients, and beyond measurement error. These values can be used to interpret changes in balance in stroke rehabilitation research and practice.



Neurosurgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumit Raj ◽  
Pradeep Chouksey ◽  
Adesh Shrivastava ◽  
Rakesh Mishra ◽  
Amit Agrawal


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (15) ◽  
pp. 3216
Author(s):  
Anne Puchar ◽  
Pierre Panel ◽  
Anne Oppenheimer ◽  
Joseph Du Cheyron ◽  
Xavier Fritel ◽  
...  

Objectives: To study the measurement properties, the responsiveness and the minimal clinically important difference of the ENDOPAIN-4D: a new questionnaire for assessing pain in endometriosis. Methods: A prospective, observational, multicentre study was conducted including all women ≥18 years consulting for symptomatic proven endometriosis between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2018 and volunteering to participate. Each patient had to answer a new self-administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires (the ENDOPAIN-4D) at inclusion (T0) and 12 months after medical or surgical treatment (T1). Criteria defined by COSMIN were used to validate the questionnaire's measurement properties. The minimal clinically important difference was estimated by the anchor-based method. Results: The study included 199 women. The ENDOPAIN-4D score had a four dimensional structure with good internal consistency (measured by Cronbach α): I) pain-related disability (α = 0.79), II) painful bowel symptoms (α = 0.80), III) dyspareunia (α = 0.83), and IV) painful urinary tract symptoms (α = 0.77). They produced four subscores that can be summed to obtain a single score (α = 0.61). The ENDOPAIN-4D total score ranged from 0 to 94.00 (mean ± SD: 46.7 ± 22). The total score was significantly correlated with the PROs used in endometriosis. Sensitivity to change was good with large effect sizes (ES) (mean of the differences: 36.3 p = 1.8 10−7, ES 0.76). The minimal clinically important difference of the global score was determined to be 10.9. Conclusions: The ENDOPAIN-4D questionnaire is easy to use, valid, and effective in assessing patient reported pain symptoms in women treated for endometriosis. This new instrument can be used as the primary outcome for future clinical trials and as a tool for routine patient follow-up.



2021 ◽  
pp. 107110072110028
Author(s):  
Peter Larsen ◽  
Mohammed Al-Bayati ◽  
Rasmus Elsøe

Background: Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are available for assessing the outcomes following ankle fractures. This study aimed to evaluate validity, reliability, and responsiveness and detect the minimal clinically important difference of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) in patients with ankle fractures. Methods: The study design is a prospective cohort study, including all patients treated both conservatively and surgically following an ankle fracture (AO-43A/B/C). Content validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference were evaluated from 14 days to 3 months following the fracture. Results: The study population consisted of 52 females and 24 males. The mean age was 52.0 years (range, 15-75 years). The percentage of patients at 12 weeks reporting the 5 subscales at least somewhat relevant were pain, 77%; symptoms, 75%; activities of daily living (ADL), 64%; sport, 81%; and quality of life (QOL), 88%. High test-retest reliability of the FAOS questionnaire was observed. The interclass coefficients were 0.78, 0.77, 0.71, 0.73, and 0.74 for the pain, symptoms, ADL, sport, and QOL subscales, respectively. Responsiveness was evaluated with high effect size for the symptoms (0.83), ADL (1.19), sport (4.36), and QOL (2.12) subscales. The minimal clinically important difference of the FAOS was 14 (95% CI, 12-17). Conclusion: The FAOS during early recovery after ankle fracture has high reliability and validity. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective cohort study



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document