17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          AIM

          To establish minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for measurements in an orthopaedic patient population with joint disorders.

          METHODS

          Adult patients aged 18 years and older seeking care for joint conditions at an orthopaedic clinic took the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS ® PF) computerized adaptive test (CAT), hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction (HOOS JR), and the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction (KOOS JR) from February 2014 to April 2017. MCIDs were calculated using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Patient reports of meaningful change in function since their first clinic encounter were used as an anchor.

          RESULTS

          There were 2226 patients who participated with a mean age of 61.16 (SD = 12.84) years, 41.6% male, and 89.7% Caucasian. Mean change ranged from 7.29 to 8.41 for the PROMIS ® PF CAT, from 14.81 to 19.68 for the HOOS JR, and from 14.51 to 18.85 for the KOOS JR. ROC cut-offs ranged from 1.97-8.18 for the PF CAT, 6.33-43.36 for the HOOS JR, and 2.21-8.16 for the KOOS JR. Distribution-based methods estimated MCID values ranging from 2.45 to 21.55 for the PROMIS ® PF CAT; from 3.90 to 43.61 for the HOOS JR, and from 3.98 to 40.67 for the KOOS JR. The median MCID value in the range was similar to the mean change score for each measure and was 7.9 for the PF CAT, 18.0 for the HOOS JR, and 15.1 for the KOOS JR.

          CONCLUSION

          This is the first comprehensive study providing a wide range of MCIDs for the PROMIS ® PF, HOOS JR, and KOOS JR in orthopaedic patients with joint ailments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Index for rating diagnostic tests.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

            In recent years quality of life instruments have been featured as primary outcomes in many randomized trials. One of the challenges facing the investigator using such measures is determining the significance of any differences observed, and communicating that significance to clinicians who will be applying the trial results. We have developed an approach to elucidating the significance of changes in score in quality of life instruments by comparing them to global ratings of change. Using this approach we have established a plausible range within which the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) falls. In three studies in which instruments measuring dyspnea, fatigue, and emotional function in patients with chronic heart and lung disease were applied the MCID was represented by mean change in score of approximately 0.5 per item, when responses were presented on a seven point Likert scale. Furthermore, we have established ranges for changes in questionnaire scores that correspond to moderate and large changes in the domains of interest. This information will be useful in interpreting questionnaire scores, both in individuals and in groups of patients participating in controlled trials, and in the planning of new trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

              Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores are commonly used by clinicians when determining patient response to treatment and to guide clinical decision-making during the course of treatment. For research purposes, the MCID score is often used in sample size calculations for adequate powering of a study to minimize the false-positives (type 1 errors) and the false-negatives (type 2 errors). For clinicians and researchers alike, it is critical that the MCID score is a valid and stable measure. A low MCID value may result in overestimating the positive effects of treatment, whereas a high MCID value may incorrectly classify patients as failing to respond to treatment when in fact the treatment was beneficial. The wide range of methodologies for calculating the MCID score results in varied outcomes, which leads to difficulties with interpretation and application. This clinimetrics corner outlines key factors influencing MCID estimates and discusses limitations with the use of the MCID in both clinical and research practice settings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                World J Orthop
                WJO
                World Journal of Orthopedics
                Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
                2218-5836
                18 March 2018
                18 March 2018
                : 9
                : 3
                : 41-49
                Affiliations
                Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
                Division of Public Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
                Population Health Research Foundation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States
                Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
                Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
                Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
                Author notes

                Author contributions: Hung M was instrumental in study design, data collection, data processing, data analysis, interpretation, study oversight, literature review, manuscript writing and editing; Bounsanga J was instrumental in data processing, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing; Voss MW was instrumental in literature review, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing; Saltzman CL was instrumental in study design, data collection, interpretation and manuscript editing.

                Correspondence to: Man Hung, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Operations, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States. man.hung@ 123456hsc.utah.edu

                Telephone: +1-801-5875372 Fax: +1-801-5875411

                Article
                jWJO.v9.i3.pg41
                10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.41
                5859199
                29564213
                66d1787c-9611-40d2-aac2-26b9c6b2d59a
                ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

                This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.

                History
                : 4 January 2018
                : 30 January 2018
                : 6 February 2018
                Categories
                Clinical Practice Study

                hhip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction,patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function,knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction,minimum clinically important difference,joint,physical function,minimum detectable change,arthroplasty,orthopaedics,clinical outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article