scholarly journals Minimal clinically important difference in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Breathe ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 200345
Author(s):  
Mohleen Kang ◽  
Lucian Marts ◽  
Jordan A. Kempker ◽  
Srihari Veeraraghavan
Keyword(s):  
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Pulmonary Function Tests ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
List Type ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Patient Reported

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive fibrosing lung disease with an estimated median survival of 2–5 years and a significant impact on quality of life (QoL). Current approved medications, pirfenidone and nintedanib, have shown a reduction in annual decline of forced vital capacity but no impact on QoL. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a threshold value for a change in a parameter that is considered meaningful by the patient rather than solely relying on statistically significant change in the parameter. This review provides a brief overview of the MCID methodology along with detailed discussion of reported MCID values for commonly used physiological measures and patient-reported outcome measures in IPF. While there is no gold standard methodology for determining MCID, there are certain limitations in the MCID literature in IPF, mainly the choice of death, hospitalisation and pulmonary function tests as sole anchors, and pervasive use of distribution-based methods which do not take into account the patient's input. There is a critical need to identify accurate thresholds of outcome measures that reflect patient's QoL over time in order to more precisely design and evaluate future clinical trials and to develop algorithms for patient-oriented management of IPF in outpatient clinics.Educational aimsTo understand the concept of MCID and the methods used to determine these values.To understand the indications and limitations of MCID values in IPF.

scholarly journals Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Patient Reported Outcome Measures of Lower Extremity Injuries in Orthopedics

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derya Çelik ◽  
Özge Çoban ◽  
Önder Kılıçoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Patient Reported

Purpose: MCID scores for outcome measures are frequently used evidence-based guides to gage meaningful changes. To conduct a systematic review of the quality and content of the the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) relating to 16 patient-rated outcome measures (PROM) used in lower extremity. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review on articles reporting MCID in lower extremity outcome measures and orthopedics from January 1, 1980, to May 10, 2016. We evaluated MCID of the 16 patient reported outcome measures (PROM) which were Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC), The Lysholm Scale, The Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET), The Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life Questionnaire (ACL-QOL), The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), The Western Ontario and Mcmaster Universities Index (WOMAC), Knee İnjury And Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale, The Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment Patellar Tendinosis (Jumper’s Knee) (VİSA-P), Tegner Activity Rating Scale, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Foot And Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), The Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot And Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), The Foot And Ankle Disability Index Score and Sports Module, Achill Tendon Total Rupture Score(ATRS), The Victorian İnstitute Of Sports Assesment Achilles Questionnaire(VİSA-A), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). A search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, PEDro and Cochrane Cen¬tral Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases from the date of inception to May 1, 2016 was conducted. The terms “minimal clinically important difference,” “minimal clinically important change”, “minimal clinically important improvement” “were combined with one of the PROM as mentioned above. Results: A total of 223 abstracts were reviewed and 119 articles chosen for full text review. Thirty articles were included in the final evaluation. The MCID was mostly calculated for WOMAC and frequently reported in knee and hip osteoartritis, knee and hip atrhroplasties, femoraasetabular impingement syndrome and focal cartilage degeneration. In addition, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was the most used method to report MCID. Conclusions: MCID is an important concept used to determine whether a medical intervention improves perceived outcomes in patients. Despite an abundance of methods reported in the literature, little work in MCID estimation has been done in the PRAM related to lower extremity. There is a need for future studies in this regard.

Understanding the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad R. Sedaghat
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
The Many

ObjectiveThe minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) represents a threshold value of change in PROM score deemed to have an implication in clinical management. The MCID is frequently used to interpret the significance of results from clinical studies that use PROMs. However, an understanding of the many caveats of the MCID, as well as its strengths and limitations, is necessary. The objective of this article is to provide a review of the calculation, interpretation, and caveats of MCID.Data SourcesMEDLINE and PubMed Central.Review MethodsLiterature search—including primary studies, review articles, and consensus statements—pertinent to the objectives of this review using PubMed.ConclusionsThe MCID of a PROM may vary depending on the patients and clinical context in which the PROM is given. The primary approaches for calculating MCID are distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Each methodology has strengths and limitations, and the ideal determination of a PROM MCID includes synthesis of results from both approaches. The MCID of a PROM is also not perfect in detecting patients experiencing a clinically important improvement, and this is reflected in its accuracy (eg, sensitivity and specificity).Implications for PracticeInterpretation or application of MCID requires consideration of all caveats underlying the MCID, including the patients in whom it was derived, the limitations of the methodologies used to calculate it, and its accuracy for identifying patients who have experienced clinically significant improvement.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of patient reported outcome measures in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 147997312110339
Author(s):  
Jee Whang Kim ◽  
Allan Clark ◽  
Surinder S Birring ◽  
Christopher Atkins ◽  
Moira Whyte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Prospective Multicentre Study ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
St George's Respiratory Questionnaire

Background: Various patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We aimed to describe their psychometric properties, assess their relationship with 1-year mortality and determine their minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). Methods: In a prospective multicentre study, participants with IPF completed the King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease Questionnaire (K-BILD), the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and University of California, San Diego shortness of breath questionnaire (UCSD-SOBQ) three-monthly intervals over a 12-month period. Forced vital capacity (FVC) was matched with questionnaires and mortality was captured. Anchor- and distribution-based methods were used to derive MCID. Results: Data were available from 238 participants. All PROMs had good internal consistency and high degree of correlations with other tools (except UCSD-SOBQ correlated poorly with FVC). There were significant associations with mortality for K-BILD (hazard ratio 16.67; 95% CI 2.38–100) and SGRQ (hazard ratio 4.65; 95% CI 1.32–16.62) but not with the other PROMs or FVC. The median MCID (range) for K-BILD was 6.3 (4.1–7.0), SGRQ was 7.0 (3.8–9.6), mMRC was 0.4 (0.1–0.5) and UCSD-SOBQ was 9.6 (4.1–14.2). Conclusions: The K-BILD was related to other severity measures and had the strongest relationship with mortality.

scholarly journals Getting the measure of outcomes in clinical practice

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glyn Lewis ◽  
Helen Killaspy
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Quality Of Services ◽  
List Type ◽  
Regression To The Mean ◽  
Process Measures ◽  
Patient Reported

SummaryIt has been argued that the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be encouraged in order to improve the quality of services and even to determine payment. Clinician-rated outcome measures (CROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and process measures also should be considered in evaluating healthcare quality. We discuss difficulties that the routine use of outcome measures might pose for psychiatric services. When outcome and experience measures are used to evaluate services they are difficult to interpret because of differences in case mix and regression to the mean. We conclude that PROMs and CROMs could be useful for monitoring the progress of individuals and that clinical audit still has an important role to play in improving the quality of services.LEARNING OBJECTIVESUnderstand the difference between process measurement and outcome measurement.Understand the limitation of using outcome measures to assess and promote quality of services.Understand the difficulties in assessing the psychometric properties and validity of outcome measures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document