scholarly journals Minimal clinically important difference on the Beck Depression Inventory - II according to the patient's perspective

2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (15) ◽  
pp. 3269-3279 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. S. Button ◽  
D. Kounali ◽  
L. Thomas ◽  
N. J. Wiles ◽  
T. J. Peters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Beck Depression Inventory ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Statistical Modelling ◽  
Global Rating ◽  
Ratio Scale ◽  
Change Question ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Resistant Depression ◽  
Initial Depression ◽  
Receiver Operator Characteristics

BackgroundThe Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition (BDI-II) is widely used in research on depression. However, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is unknown. MCID can be estimated in several ways. Here we take a patient-centred approach, anchoring the change on the BDI-II to the patient's global report of improvement.MethodWe used data collected (n = 1039) from three randomized controlled trials for the management of depression. Improvement on a ‘global rating of change’ question was compared with changes in BDI-II scores using general linear modelling to explore baseline dependency, assessing whether MCID is best measured in absolute terms (i.e. difference) or as percent reduction in scores from baseline (i.e. ratio), and receiver operator characteristics (ROC) to estimate MCID according to the optimal threshold above which individuals report feeling ‘better’.ResultsImprovement in BDI-II scores associated with reporting feeling ‘better’ depended on initial depression severity, and statistical modelling indicated that MCID is best measured on a ratio scale as a percentage reduction of score. We estimated a MCID of a 17.5% reduction in scores from baseline from ROC analyses. The corresponding estimate for individuals with longer duration depression who had not responded to antidepressants was higher at 32%.ConclusionsMCID on the BDI-II is dependent on baseline severity, is best measured on a ratio scale, and the MCID for treatment-resistant depression is larger than that for more typical depression. This has important implications for clinical trials and practice.

scholarly journals A prospective study to establish the minimal clinically important difference of the Mini-BESTest in individuals with stroke

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921552110251
Author(s):  
Marla K Beauchamp ◽  
Rudy Niebuhr ◽  
Patricia Roche ◽  
Renata Kirkwood ◽  
Kathryn M Sibley
Keyword(s):  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Minimal Detectable Change ◽  
Global Rating ◽  
Detectable Change ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Small Change ◽  
A Prospective Study

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.

scholarly journals The King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) questionnaire: an updated minimal clinically important difference

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aish Sinha ◽  
Amit Suresh Patel ◽  
Richard J Siegert ◽  
Sabrina Bajwah ◽  
Toby M Maher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interstitial Lung Disease ◽  
Lung Disease ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Scale Transformation ◽  
Global Rating ◽  
Longitudinal Assessment ◽  
Hrqol Questionnaire ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Small Change

IntroductionThe King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) is a 15-item validated health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaire. The method of scoring the KBILD has recently changed to incorporate a logit-scale transformation from one that used raw item responses, as this is potentially a more linear scale. The aim of this study was to re-evaluate the KBILD minimal clinically important difference (MCID) using the new logit -transformed scoring.Methods57 patients with interstitial lung disease (17 idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, IPF) were asked to complete the KBILD questionnaire on two occasions in outpatient clinics. At the second visit, patients also completed a 15-item global rating of change of health status questionnaire (GRCQ). The MCID was calculated as the mean of four different methods: the change in KBILD for patients indicating a small change in GRCQ, patients with a 7%–12% change in FVC, 1 SE of measurement of baseline KBILD and effect size (ES) of 0.3.ResultsThe mean (SD) KBILD total score for all patients was 55.3 (15.6). 16 patients underwent a therapeutic intervention. 36 patients reported a change in their condition on the GRCQ; 22 deteriorated, 14 improved and 21 were unchanged. There was a significant change in KBILD total score in patients reporting a change in GRCQ; mean (SD) 57.0 (13.6) versus 50.0 (9.7); mean difference 7.0; 95% CI of difference 3.0 to 11.0; p<0.01. The change in KBILD total score correlated with the GRCQ scale; r=−0.49, p<0.01. The mean KBILD total score MCID was 5. The MCID of KBILD domains were 6 for Psychological, 7 for Breathlessness and Activities, and 11 for Chest Symptoms.ConclusionThe KBILD is a responsive tool for longitudinal assessment of HRQOL in patients with ILD. The MCID of the KBILD total score is a 5-unit change.

Minimal clinically important difference of the L Test for individuals with lower limb amputation: A pilot study

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 470-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula W Rushton ◽  
William C Miller ◽  
A Barry Deathe
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Important Change ◽  
Lower Limb Amputation ◽  
Limb Amputation ◽  
Global Rating ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Rating Change

Background:The L Test is a reliable/valid clinical evaluation of mobility that measures walking speed in seconds. It can be used with individuals with lower limb amputation. Responsiveness of the L Test is not yet determined.Objectives:The purpose of this pilot study was to determine how well the L Test identified individuals with a lower limb amputation who have/have not undergone a minimal clinically important difference.Study design:Prospective follow-up study.Methods:In total, 33 individuals with lower limb amputation, deemed to require a major intervention, were recruited consecutively from a follow-up clinic. Participants completed the L Test at baseline and follow-up. A Global Rating Change scale was also completed at follow-up.Results:The participants had a mean age ± standard deviation of 60 ± 13.0 years, and 81.8% had a transtibial amputation. The mean ± standard deviation for the L Test change scores was 6.0 ± 13.9. The area under the curve was 0.67, and the minimal clinically important difference was 4.5 s.Conclusions:The L Test identified individuals as having an important clinical change. Results must be interpreted with caution, as the accuracy, based on the Global Rating Change scale, is low. Further inquiry into the L Test is encouraged.Clinical relevanceThe L Test can guide the clinical management of individuals with lower limb amputation. Results from this pilot study indicate that individuals with a lower limb amputation who improve by at least 4.5 s on the L Test after an intervention have likely undergone an important change. This result must be interpreted with caution given that the ability of the L Test to correctly identify individuals, who have and have not undergone an important change, using the Global Rating Change scale as the gold standard, is limited because this is a pilot study. It is plausible that the precision of the cut-point threshold could increase or decrease given a larger sample or when using a different method of identifying important clinical change.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Three Quality of Recovery Scales

2016 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul S. Myles ◽  
Daniel B. Myles ◽  
Wendy Galagher ◽  
Colleen Chew ◽  
Neil MacDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Status ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Global Rating ◽  
Meaningful Change ◽  
Quality Of Recovery ◽  
The Third ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Important Improvement ◽  
Patient’S Experience

Abstract Background Several quality of recovery (QoR) health status scales have been developed to quantify the patient’s experience after anesthesia and surgery, but to date, it is unclear what constitutes the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). That is, what minimal change in score would indicate a meaningful change in a patient’s health status? Methods The authors enrolled a sequential, unselected cohort of patients recovering from surgery and used three QoR scales (the 9-item QoR score, the 15-item QoR-15, and the 40-item QoR-40) to quantify a patient’s recovery after surgery and anesthesia. The authors compared changes in patient QoR scores with a global rating of change questionnaire using an anchor-based method and three distribution-based methods (0.3 SD, standard error of the measurement, and 5% range). The authors then averaged the change estimates to determine the MCID for each QoR scale. Results The authors enrolled 204 patients at the first postoperative visit, and 199 were available for a second interview; a further 24 patients were available at the third interview. The QoR scores improved significantly between the first two interviews. Triangulation of distribution- and anchor-based methods results in an MCID of 0.92, 8.0, and 6.3 for the QoR score, QoR-15, and QoR-40, respectively. Conclusion Perioperative interventions that result in a change of 0.9 for the QoR score, 8.0 for the QoR-15, or 6.3 for the QoR-40 signify a clinically important improvement or deterioration.

Letter: Contemporary Analysis of Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Neurosurgical Literature

Neurosurgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumit Raj ◽  
Pradeep Chouksey ◽  
Adesh Shrivastava ◽  
Rakesh Mishra ◽  
Amit Agrawal
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Clinically Important Difference

scholarly journals The ENDOPAIN 4D Questionnaire: A New Validated Tool for Assessing Pain in Endometriosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (15) ◽  
pp. 3216
Author(s):  
Anne Puchar ◽  
Pierre Panel ◽  
Anne Oppenheimer ◽  
Joseph Du Cheyron ◽  
Xavier Fritel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Dimensional Structure ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Urinary Tract Symptoms ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Good Internal Consistency ◽  
Pain Symptoms

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document