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.

Changes in Quality of Life in Parkinson's Disease: How Large Must They Be to Be Relevant?

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krisztina Horváth ◽  
Zsuzsanna Aschermann ◽  
Márton Kovács ◽  
Attila Makkos ◽  
Márk Harmat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Large Pool ◽  
Important Improvement ◽  
Optimal Estimates ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Improvement

Background: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in an outcome, which a patient identifies as meaningful. Although the 2 most frequently applied Parkinson's disease (PD) “quality of life” questionnaires (the PDQ-39 and PDQ-8) provide encouragingly similar results, their MCID thresholds appear to be vastly different. Our aim was to calculate the MCID estimates for both PDQ-39 and PDQ-8 Summary Indices (PDQ-39-SI and PDQ-8-SI) by the utilization of both anchor- and distribution-based techniques. Methods: Nine hundred eighty-five paired investigations of 365 patients were included. Three different techniques were used simultaneously to calculate the MCID values. Results: First, we replicated the previously published results demonstrating how both PDQ-39-SI and PDQ-8-SI provide similar values and respond in a similar way to changes. Subsequently, we calculated the MCID thresholds. The most optimal estimates for MCID thresholds for PDQ-39-SI were -4.72 and +4.22 for detecting minimal clinically important improvement and worsening. For PDQ-8-SI, these estimates were -5.94 and +4.91 points for detecting minimal clinically important improvement and worsening respectively. Conclusions: Our study is the first one that directly compared the MCID estimates for both PDQ-39-SI and PDQ-8-SI on a large pool of patients including all disease severity stages. These MICD estimates varied across PD severity.

scholarly journals Contemporary Analysis of Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Neurosurgical Literature

Neurosurgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M Zervos ◽  
Karam Asmaro ◽  
Ellen L Air
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Meaningful Change ◽  
Method Of Calculation ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Outcome Difference ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Quality Of Life Instruments ◽  
Activity Indices

Abstract BACKGROUND Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is determined when a patient or physician defines the minimal change that outweighs the costs and untoward effects of a treatment. These measurements are “anchored” to validated quality-of-life instruments or physician-rated, disease-activity indices. To capture the subjective clinical experience in a measurable way, there is an increasing use of MCID. OBJECTIVE To review the overall concept, method of calculation, strengths, and weaknesses of MCID and its application in the neurosurgical literature. METHODS Recent articles were reviewed based on PubMed query. To illustrate the strengths and limitations of MCID, studies regarding the measurement of pain are emphasized and their impact on subsequent publications queried. RESULTS MCID varies by population baseline characteristics and calculation method. In the context of pain, MCID varied based on the quality of pain, chronicity, and treatment options. CONCLUSION MCID evaluates outcomes relative to whether they provide a meaningful change to patients, incorporating the risks and benefits of a treatment. Using MCID in the process of evaluating outcomes helps to avoid the error of interpreting a small but statistically significant outcome difference as being clinically important.

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 Measuring Health Status (Quality of Recovery?) after Anesthesia and Surgery

2001 ◽  
pp. 281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul S. Myles ◽  
Jennifer O. Hunt ◽  
Helen Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Health Status ◽  
Quality Of Recovery

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.

Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Patients With Vestibular Schwannoma: Are all Quality-of-Life Scores Significant?

Neurosurgery ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 85 (6) ◽  
pp. 779-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Kerezoudis ◽  
Kathleen J Yost ◽  
Nicole M Tombers ◽  
Maria Peris Celda ◽  
Matthew L Carlson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Acoustic Neuroma ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prospective Data ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Spearman’S Correlation

Abstract BACKGROUND The diagnosis of vestibular schwannomas (VS) is associated with reduced patient quality of life (QOL). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was introduced as the lowest improvement in a patient-reported outcome (PRO) score discerned as significant by the patient. We formerly presented an MCID for the Penn Acoustic Neuroma QOL (PANQOL) battery based on cross-sectional data from 2 tertiary referral centers. OBJECTIVE To validate the PANQOL MCID values using prospective data. METHODS A prospective registry capturing QOL was queried, comprising patients treated at the authors’ institution and Acoustic Neuroma Association members. Anchor- and distribution-based techniques were utilized to determine the MCID for domain and total scores. We only included anchors with Spearman's correlation coefficient larger than 0.3 in the MCID threshold calculations. Most domains had multiple anchors with which to estimate the MCID. RESULTS A total of 1254 patients (mean age: 57.4 yr, 65% females) were analyzed. Anchor-based methods produced a span of MCID values (median, 25th-75th percentile) for each PANQOL domain and the total score: hearing (13.1, 13-16 points), balance (14, 14-19 points), pain (21, 20-28 points), face (25, 16-36 points), energy (16, 15-18 points), anxiety (16 [1 estimate]), general (13 [1 estimate]), and total (12.5, 10-15 points). CONCLUSION Current findings corroborate our formerly shared experience using multi-institutional, cross-sectional information. These MCID thresholds can serve as a pertinent outcome when deciphering the clinical magnitude of VS QOL endpoints in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.

What Is a Clinically Relevant Improvement in Quality of Life in Adults With ADHD?

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-75
Author(s):  
Yoko Tanaka ◽  
Meryl Brod ◽  
Jeannine R. Lane ◽  
Himanshu Upadhyaya
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Term Treatment ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Long Term Treatment

Objective: To estimate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the adult ADHD Quality of Life (AAQoL) scale. Method: The MCID was determined from data from short-term ( N = 537) and long-term ( N = 440), placebo-controlled atomoxetine trials in adults with ADHD. For the anchor-based approach, change in clinician-rated Clinical Global Impressions–ADHD–Severity (CGI-ADHD-S) scores was used to derive MCID. For the distribution-based approach, baseline-to-endpoint mean ( SD) changes in AAQoL scores corresponding to 0.5 SD were computed. Results: The MCID was similar (approximately 8-point difference) between the short-term and the long-term treatment groups when either the anchor-based or distribution-based approach was used. Conclusion: These results suggest that approximately 8 points in the change from baseline on the AAQoL is a MCID.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document