Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study

Estimation of minimal clinically important difference for 6-minute walking distance in patients with acute stroke using anchor-based methods and credibility instruments

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Stroke impairs a patient's ability to walk. In patients with acute stroke, a 6-min walking distance (6MWD) is recommended to assess walking function. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation; however, the MCID for 6MWD has not been adequately validated. This study aimed to estimate the MCID of 6MWD, a measure of walking endurance, in patients with acute stroke using anchor-based methods.

METHODS

Based on the change in 6MWD from baseline to the follow-up measurement 2 weeks later, the MCID was estimated using anchor-based methods (receiver operator operating characteristic curves, predictive and adjustment models) with a patient- and therapist-rated global rating of change scale (p-GRC, t-GRC) as external anchors. The accuracy of "meaningful change" was estimated from the area under the curve. Using MCID's credibility instruments, the credibility of each anchor was evaluated. Using the credibility instrument, high credibility was defined as satisfying 3/5 of the Core criteria and 6/9 of all criteria.

RESULTS

The analysis included 58 patients. The MCID for each anchor was 78.7-100.0 m for p-GRC, and 95.2-99.5 m for t-GRC. The p-GRC demonstrated excellent accuracy (area under the curve >0.8). With p-GRC as anchors, over 50% of patients showed improvement. The p-GRC satisfied the core criterion of 3/5 and all criteria of 6/9 on the reliability instrument. The t-GRC demonstrated low reliability and satisfied the core criterion of 2/5 and all criteria of 3/9.

DISCUSSION

Since the percentage of improved groups exceeded 50%, the adjusted model was useful in the anchor-based method. Therapists may not accurately capture patient fatigue and subjective symptoms, potentially affecting the correlation between the 6MWD change score and the t-GRC and, consequently, the reliability instrument. The p-GRC showed high accuracy and reliability; therefore, the MCID was estimated to be 78.7 m.

The minimal important change is not a universal fixed value across diagnoses when using the FAOS and FAAM in patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to calculate region and diagnosis-specific minimal important changes (MICs) of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in patients requiring foot and ankle surgery and to assess their variability across different foot and ankle diagnoses.

METHODS

The study used routinely collected data from patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery. Patients had been invited to complete the FAOS and FAAM preoperatively and at 3-6 months after surgery, along with two anchor questions encompassing change in pain and daily function. Patients were categorised according to region of pathology and subsequent diagnoses. MICs were calculated using predictive modelling (MICPRED) and receiver operating characteristic curve (MICROC) method and evaluated according to strict credibility criteria.

RESULTS

Substantial variability of the MICs between forefoot and ankle/hindfoot region was observed, as well as among specific foot and ankle diagnoses, with MICPRED and MICROC values ranging from 7.8 to 25.5 points and 9.4 to 27.8, respectively. Despite differences between MICROC and MICPRED estimates, both calculation methods exhibited largely consistent patterns of variation across subgroups, with forefoot conditions systematically showing smaller MICs than ankle/hindfoot conditions. Most MICs demonstrated high credibility; however, the majority of the MICs for the FAOS symptoms subscale and forefoot conditions exhibited insufficient or low credibility.

CONCLUSION

The MICs of the FAOS and FAAM vary across foot and ankle diagnoses in patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery and should not be used as a universal fixed value, but recognised as contextual parameters. This can help clinicians and researchers in more accurate interpretation of the FAOS and FAAM change scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Minimal clinically important difference in 6-minute walk distance estimated by multiple methods in inpatients with subacute cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Identifying the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) contributes to the ability to determine the efficacy of physiotherapy interventions and make good clinical decisions.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to estimate the MCID for 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) among inpatients with subacute cardiac disease using multiple anchor-based methods.

METHODS

This study was a secondary data analysis using only data from a multicenter longitudinal observational study in which 6MWD was measured at two time points. Based on the changes in 6MWD between baseline measurement and follow-up approximately 1 week after baseline measurement, the global rating of change scales (GRCs) of patients and physiotherapists, anchor method receiver operator operating characteristic curves, predictive models, and adjusted models were used to calculate the MCID.

RESULTS

Participants comprised 35 patients. Mean (standard deviation) 6MWD was 228.9 m (121.1 m) at baseline and 270.1 m (125.0 m) at follow-up. MCID for each GRC was 27.5-35.6 m for patients and 32.5-38.6 m for physiotherapists.

CONCLUSION

The MCID in 6MWD in patients with subacute cardiovascular disease is 27.5-38.6 m. This value may be useful in determining the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions and for decision-making.

The gap between statistical and clinical significance: time to pay attention to clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome measures of insomnia

BACKGROUND

Appropriately defining and using the minimal important change (MIC) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) are crucial for determining whether the results are clinically significant. The aim of this study is to survey the status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and interpretation of MIC/MCID values.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study to survey the status of RCTs for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and appropriate interpretation of MIC/MCID values. A literature search was conducted by searching the main sleep medicine journals indexed in PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify a broad range of search terms. We included RCTs with no restriction on the intervention. The included studies used the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) or the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire as the outcome measures.

RESULTS

81 eligible studies were identified, and more than one-third of the included studies used MIC/MCID (n = 31, 38.3%). Among them, 21 studies with ISI as the outcome used MIC defined as a relative decrease ranging from 3 to 8 points. The most frequently used MIC value was a 6-point decrease (n = 7), followed by 8-point (n = 6) and 7-point decrease (n = 4), a 4 to 5-points decrease (n = 3), and a 30% reduction from baseline; 6 studies used MCID values, ranging from 2.8 to 4 points. The most frequently used MCID value was a 4-point decrease in the ISI (n = 4). 4 studies with PSQI as the outcome used a 3-point change as the MIC (n = 2) and a 2.5 to 2.7-point difference as MCID (n = 2). 4 non-inferiority design studies considered interval estimation when drawing clinically significant conclusions in their MCID usage.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of consistent MIC/MCID interpretation and usage in outcome measures for insomnia highlights the urgent need for further efforts to address this issue and improve reporting practices.

Telehealth-Supported Exercise or Physical Activity Programs for Knee Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The integration of telehealth-supported programs in chronic disease management has become increasingly common. However, its effectiveness for individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of telehealth-supported exercise or physical activity programs for individuals with KOA.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search encompassing Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, PEDro, GreyNet, and medRxiv from inception to September 2023 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing telehealth-supported exercise or physical activity programs to a control condition for KOA. Data were extracted and qualitatively synthesized across eligible studies, and a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effects. The study was reported according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020.

RESULTS

In total, 23 studies met eligibility criteria, with 20 included in the meta-analysis. Results showed that telehealth-supported exercise or physical activity programs reduced pain (g=-0.39; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.11; P<.001), improved physical activity (g=0.13; 95% CI 0.03-0.23; P=.01), and enhanced physical function (g=-0.51; 95% CI -0.98 to -0.05; P=.03). Moreover, significant improvements in quality of life (g=0.25; 95% CI 0.14-0.36; P<.001), self-efficacy for pain (g=0.72; 95% CI 0.53-0.91; P<.001), and global improvement (odds ratio 2.69, 95% CI 1.41-5.15; P<.001) were observed. However, self-efficacy for physical function (g=0.14; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.53; P=.50) showed insignificant improvements. Subgroup analyses based on the World Health Organization classification of digital health (pain: χ22=6.5; P=.04 and physical function: χ22=6.4; P=.04), the type of teletechnology in the intervention group (pain: χ24=4.8; P=.31 and function: χ24=13.0; P=.01), and active or inactive controls (pain: χ21=5.3; P=.02 and physical function: χ21=3.4; P=.07) showed significant subgroup differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth-supported exercise or physical activity programs might reduce knee pain and improve physical activity, physical function, quality of life, self-efficacy, and global improvement in individuals with KOA. Future research should consider longer implementation durations and assess the feasibility of incorporating wearables and standardized components into large-scale interventions to evaluate the effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022359658; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=359658.

Minimal Clinically Important Change of Movement Pain in Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions

Movement pain, which is distinct from resting pain, is frequently reported by individuals with musculoskeletal pain. There is growing interest in measuring movement pain as a primary outcome in clinical trials, but no minimally clinically important change (MCIC) has been established, limiting interpretations. We analyzed data from 315 participants who participated in previous clinical trials (65 with chronic Achilles tendinopathy; 250 with fibromyalgia) to establish an MCIC for movement pain. A composite movement pain score was defined as the average pain (Numeric Rating Scale: 0-10) during 2 clinically relevant activities. The change in movement pain was calculated as the change in movement pain from pre-intervention to post-intervention. A Global Scale (GS: 1-7) was completed after the intervention on perceived change in health status. Participants were dichotomized into non-responders (GS ≥4) and responders (GS <3). Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated to determine threshold values and corresponding sensitivity and specificity. We used the Euclidean method to determine the optimal threshold point of the Receiver operating characteristic curve to determine the MCIC. The MCIC for raw change in movement pain was 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .9-1.6) with a sensitivity of .83 (95% CI: .75-.92) and specificity of .79 (95% CI: .72-.86). For percent change in movement pain the MCIC was 27% (95% CI: 10-44%) with a sensitivity of .79 (95% CI: .70-.88) and a specificity of .82 (95% CI: .72-.90). Establishing an MCIC for movement pain will improve interpretations in clinical practice and research. PERSPECTIVE: A minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of 1.1- points (95% CI: .9-1.6) for movement pain discriminates between responders and non-responders to rehabilitation. This MCIC provides context for interpreting the meaningfulness of improvement in pain specific to movement tasks.

'A Meaningful Difference, but Not Ultimately the Difference I Would Want': A Mixed-Methods Approach to Explore and Benchmark Clinically Meaningful Changes in Aphasia Recovery

INTRODUCTION

Outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are used to gauge the effects of treatment. In post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation, benchmarks for meaningful change are needed to support the interpretation of patient outcomes. This study is part of a research programme to establish minimal important change (MIC) values (the smallest change above which patients perceive themselves as importantly changed) for core OMIs. As a first step in this process, the views of people with aphasia and clinicians were explored, and consensus was sought on a threshold for clinically meaningful change.

METHODS

Sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Participants included people with post-stroke aphasia and speech pathologists. People with aphasia were purposively sampled based on time post-stroke, age and gender, whereas speech pathologists were sampled according to their work setting (hospital or community). Each participant attended a focus group followed by a consensus workshop with a survey component. Within the focus groups, experiences and methods for measuring meaningful change during aphasia recovery were explored. Qualitative data were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. In the consensus workshop, participants voted on thresholds for meaningful change in core outcome constructs of language, communication, emotional well-being and quality of life, using a six-point rating scale (much worse, slightly worse, no change, slightly improved, much improved and completely recovered). Consensus was defined a priori as 70% agreement. Voting results were reported using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Five people with aphasia (n = 4, > 6 months after stroke; n = 5, < 65 years; n = 3, males) and eight speech pathologists (n = 4, hospital setting; n = 4, community setting) participated in one of four focus groups (duration: 92-112 min). Four themes were identified describing meaningful change as follows: (1) different for every single person; (2) small continuous improvements; (3) measured by progress towards personally relevant goals; and (4) influenced by personal factors. 'Slightly improved' was agreed as the threshold of MIC on the anchor-rating scale (75%-92%) within 6 months of stroke, whereas after 6 months there was a trend towards supporting 'much improved' (36%-66%).

CONCLUSION

Our mixed-methods research with people with aphasia and speech pathologists provides novel evidence to inform the definition of MIC in aphasia rehabilitation. Future research will aim to establish MIC values for core OMIs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This work is the result of engagement between people with lived experience of post-stroke aphasia, including people with aphasia, family members, clinicians and researchers. Engagement across the research cycle was sought to ensure that the research tasks were acceptable and easily understood by participants and that the outcomes of the study were relevant to the aphasia community. This engagement included the co-development of a plain English summary of the results. Advisors were remunerated in accordance with Health Consumers Queensland guidelines. Interview guides for clinicians were piloted by speech pathologists working in aphasia rehabilitation.

Responsiveness and minimal important change of specific and generic patient-reported outcome measures for back patients: the Norwegian Neck and Back Register

PURPOSE

To evaluate responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), pain during activity on a numeric rating scale (NRSa) and health related quality of life (EQ-5D) based on data from the Norwegian neck and back registry (NNRR).

METHODS

A total of 1617 patients who responded to NNRR follow-up after both 6 and 12 months were included in this study. Responsiveness was calculated using standardized response mean and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We calculated MIC with both an anchor-based and distribution-based method.

RESULTS

The condition specific ODI had best responsiveness, the more generic NRSa and EQ-5D had lower responsiveness. We found that the MIC for ODI varied from 3.0 to 9.5, from 0.4 to 2.5 for NRSa while the EQ5D varied from 0.05 to 0.12 depending on the method for calculation.

CONCLUSION

In a register based back pain population, the condition specific ODI was more responsive to change than the more generic tools NRSa and EQ5D. The variations in responsiveness and MIC estimates also indicate that they should be regarded as indicative, rather than fixed estimates.

Efficacy of the Subtenon Block in Children Undergoing Strabismus Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy of the subtenon block in preventing postoperative complications in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov. All randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of the subtenon block in children undergoing strabismus surgery were included. Outcomes included severity of pain after surgery, number of children requiring postoperative opioid and nonopioid analgesia, and the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, oculocardiac events, and block-related complications. We pooled continuous outcomes using a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference (MD) and/or standardized MD and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using a random-effect model to calculate the relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% CI. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument and quality of evidence was assessed using a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials (607 participants) were included. We found evidence for an effect of the subtenon block in reducing pain at 20 to 40 minutes after surgery (MD -1.9, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.5; high-quality evidence) and on admission to PACU (MD -1.8, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.4; moderate-quality evidence); however, there was no difference in pain scores at 6 hours after surgery. In addition, evidence was found that the subtenon block decreased the number of children requiring postoperative opioid (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37-0.92; high-quality evidence) and nonopioid (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27-0.98; moderate-quality evidence) analgesia, and the incidences of postoperative vomiting (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.7; high-quality evidence) and intraoperative oculocardiac events (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.60; high-quality evidence). Other secondary outcomes had low or moderate-quality evidence. Risk of bias was low in six trials and high in three. There were no reports of block-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the subtenon block reduces the severity of early postoperative pain and the incidences of postoperative vomiting and intraoperative oculocardiac events compared with controls in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42015025443).

Exploring the fragility of meta-analyses in ophthalmology: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The fragility index (FI) of a meta-analysis evaluates the extent that the statistical significance can be changed by modifying the event status of individuals from included trials. Understanding the FI improves the interpretation of the results of meta-analyses and can help to inform changes to clinical practice. This review determined the fragility of ophthalmology-related meta-analyses.

METHODS

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with binary outcomes published in a journal classified as 'Ophthalmology' according to the Journal Citation Report or an Ophthalmology-related Cochrane Review were included. An iterative process determined the FI of each meta-analysis. Multivariable linear regression modeling evaluated the relationship between the FI and potential predictive factors in statistically significant and non-significant meta-analyses.

RESULTS

175 meta-analyses were included. The median FI was 6 (Q1-Q3: 3-12). This meant that moving 6 outcomes from one group to another would reverse the study's findings. The FI was 1 for 18 (10.2%) of the included meta-analyses and was ≤5 for 75 (42.4%) of the included meta-analyses. The number of events (p < 0.001) and the p-value (p < 0.001) were the best predictors of the FI in both significant and non-significant meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

The statistical significance of meta-analyses in ophthalmology often hinges on the outcome of a few patients. The number of events and the p-value are the most important factors in determining the fragility of the evidence. The FI is an easily interpretable measure that can supplement the reader's understanding of the strength of the evidence being presented.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42022377589.

Meaningful changes in motor function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD): A multi-center study

Evaluations of treatment efficacy in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a rare genetic disease that results in progressive muscle wasting, require an understanding of the 'meaningfulness' of changes in functional measures. We estimated the minimal detectable change (MDC) for selected motor function measures in ambulatory DMD, i.e., the minimal degree of measured change needed to be confident that true underlying change has occurred rather than transient variation or measurement error. MDC estimates were compared across multiple data sources, representing >1000 DMD patients in clinical trials and real-world clinical practice settings. Included patients were ambulatory, aged ≥4 to <18 years and receiving steroids. Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for worsening were also estimated. Estimated MDC thresholds for >80% confidence in true change were 2.8 units for the North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) total score, 1.3 seconds for the 4-stair climb (4SC) completion time, 0.36 stairs/second for 4SC velocity and 36.3 meters for the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD). MDC estimates were similar across clinical trial and real-world data sources, and tended to be slightly larger than MCIDs for these measures. The identified thresholds can be used to inform endpoint definitions, or as benchmarks for monitoring individual changes in motor function in ambulatory DMD.

Minimal important change in the Berg Balance Scale in older women with vertebral compression fractures: A retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Vertebral compression fractures, which are commonly associated with older age and osteoporotic fractures, have an increased risk of re-fracture. Therefore, improving balance is important to prevent falls. The minimal important change (MIC) has been recommended for interpreting clinically meaningful changes in rating scales. The MIC of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) for use in older women with vertebral compression fractures has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the MIC of the BBS that can be used in older women with vertebral compression fractures using predictive modeling methods and the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC)-based method.

DESIGN

A retrospective longitudinal multicenter study.

PATIENTS

Sixty older women (mean age ± standard deviation: 84.1 ± 7.0 years) with vertebral compression fractures who were unable to ambulate independently on a level surface.

METHODS

A change of one point in the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) was used as an anchor to calculate the MIC of the BBS based on the change between admission and discharge. We calculated the MIC for the women whose FAC score improved by ≥1 point. We used three anchor-based methods to examine the MIC: the ROC-based method (MICROC), the predictive modeling method (MICpred), and the MICpred-based method adjusted by the rate of improvement and reliability of transition (MICadj).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine women comprised the "important change" group based on their FAC score improvement. In this group, the MICROC (95% confidence interval [CI]) value of the BBS was 10.0 points (5.5-15.5), with an area under the curve of 0.71. The MICpred (95% CI) value was 9.7 (8.1-11.0), and the MICadj (95% CI) was 7.0 (5.5-8.5) points.

CONCLUSION

For women with vertebral compression fractures who are unable to ambulate independently, a 7.0-point improvement in the BBS score may be a useful indicator for reducing the amount of assistance required for walking.

Calculation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using different methodologies: case study and practical guide

INTRODUCTION

Establishing thresholds of change that are actually meaningful for the patient in an outcome measurement instrument is paramount. This concept is called the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). We summarize available MCID calculation methods relevant to spine surgery, and outline key considerations, followed by a step-by-step working example of how MCID can be calculated, using publicly available data, to enable the readers to follow the calculations themselves.

METHODS

Thirteen MCID calculations methods were summarized, including anchor-based methods, distribution-based methods, Reliable Change Index, 30% Reduction from Baseline, Social Comparison Approach and the Delphi method. All methods, except the latter two, were used to calculate MCID for improvement of Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) Symptom Severity of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Numeric Rating Scale for Leg Pain and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire Walking Ability domain were used as anchors.

RESULTS

The MCID for improvement of ZCQ Symptom Severity ranged from 0.8 to 5.1. On average, distribution-based methods yielded lower MCID values, than anchor-based methods. The percentage of patients who achieved the calculated MCID threshold ranged from 9.5% to 61.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

MCID calculations are encouraged in spinal research to evaluate treatment success. Anchor-based methods, relying on scales assessing patient preferences, continue to be the "gold-standard" with receiver operating characteristic curve approach being optimal. In their absence, the minimum detectable change approach is acceptable. The provided explanation and step-by-step example of MCID calculations with statistical code and publicly available data can act as guidance in planning future MCID calculation studies.

Minimal Detectable Changes of the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 Profile Version 2.0 Domains, and Patient Health Questionnaire-8 in People With Systemic Sclerosis: A Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network Cohort Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare, chronic autoimmune disorder associated with disability, diminished physical function, fatigue, pain, and mental health concerns. We assessed minimal detectable changes (MDCs) of the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 Profile version 2.0 (PROMIS-29v2.0) domains, and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-8 in people with SSc.

METHODS

Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network Cohort participants completed the HAQ-DI, PROMIS-29v2.0 domains, and PHQ-8 at baseline assessments from April 2014 until August 2023. We estimated MDC95 (smallest change that can be detected with 95% certainty) and MDC90 (smallest change that can be detected with 90% certainty) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) generated via the percentile bootstrapping method resampling 1,000 times. We compared MDC estimates by age, sex, and SSc subtype.

RESULTS

A total of 2,571 participants were included. Most were female (n = 2,241; 87%), and 38% (n = 976) had diffuse SSc. Mean (±SD) age was 54.9 (±12.7) years and duration since onset of first non-Raynaud phenomenon symptom was 10.8 (±8.7) years. MDC95 estimate was 0.41 points (95% CI 0.40-0.42) for the HAQ-DI, between 4.88 points (95% CI 4.72-5.05) and 9.02 points (95% CI 8.80-9.23) for the seven PROMIS-29v2.0 domains, and 5.16 points (95% CI 5.06-5.26) for the PHQ-8. MDC95 estimates were not materially different across subgroups.

CONCLUSION

MDC95 and MDC90 estimates were precise and similar across age, sex, and SSc subtype groups. HAQ-DI MDC95 and MDC90 were substantially larger than previous estimates of HAQ-DI minimal important difference from several small studies. Minimally important differences of all measures should be evaluated in large studies using anchor-based methods.

How do we know whether treatment has failed? Paradoxical outcomes in counseling with young people

Background

In both routine practice contexts and research studies, evidence from standardized self-report symptom measures, administered pre- and post-treatment, is predominantly used to determine whether psychotherapy has been successful. Understanding the nature of unsuccessful psychotherapy requires an ability to evaluate the credibility of outcome data generated by such techniques. An important body of research has identified discrepancies between outcomes assessed through symptom measures and those obtained from other sources. However, not enough is known about the extent to which such paradoxical outcomes exist.

Objective

This study analyzes the relationship between outcomes, as assessed by a standardized self-report measure, and as assessed by ratings of young people's descriptions of change at post-counseling interviews.

Methods

Participants were 50 young people (13-16 years old) who had taken part in a trial of up to 10 weeks of school-based humanistic counseling. Our primary standardized measure was the Young Person's CORE (YP-CORE). To assess young people's experiences of counseling change, three independent raters scrutinized transcripts of post-counseling interviews, and scored levels of helpfulness on a 1 (Not at all helpful) to 10 (Extremely helpful) scale. Inter-rater reliabilities were 0.94 (Cronbach's Alpha) and 0.96 (McDonald's Omega). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore relationships between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures, i.e., satisfaction with counseling (ESQ) and the Goal-Based-Outcome Tool (GBO), and process measures, i.e., the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-S) and the Barret Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI).

Results

Multilevel analysis indicated that helpfulness ratings were not significantly associated with changes in YP-CORE scores. Analyzed categorically, 38% of those showing reliable improvement on the standardized measure were below the median for self-described helpfulness, and 47% of those not showing reliable change were at or above the median for self-described helpfulness. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated closer correlations between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures (ESQ and GBO), and between helpfulness ratings and process measures (WAI-S and BLRI).

Discussion

Our results raise questions about reliance on symptom change outcome measures for defining treatment success and failure, given their disparity with clients' own descriptions of the helpfulness of therapy. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

The minimal important difference in orthodontic treatment duration: a survey across adult patients

BACKGROUND

The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference that the patient perceives as important. Furthermore, the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the important change measured with the benefit-harm trade-off method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MID in orthodontic treatment duration to inform the decision regarding seeking procedures to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce treatment duration.

METHODS

We constructed a survey eliciting views of the MID from adult participants from four countries undergoing orthodontic treatment. Ten questions addressed reduction in the treatment duration for both durations 12 and 24 months, and four questions were related to the reduction in treatment duration that the patients would require to undergo surgical or non-surgical adjunctive procedures. We applied a univariable random effects logistic regression model to examine the association between the participants' characteristics and the MID. Then, we fitted a multivariable logistic random effects regression including significant predictors.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty adults, with a median age of 21 (interquartile range: 19-24), undergoing orthodontic treatment participated in the survey. Of the respondents, 60% considered 15 days as a trivial reduction from 12 months duration of therapy and 70% considered 15 days a trivial reduction from 24 months. Of the respondents, 48% considered the period of 2 months a moderate reduction from 12 months, and 60% considered 2 months a moderate reduction from 24 months. From these results, we inferred that patients considered reductions of approximately 1 month as the MID in the treatment duration for both 12 and 24 months. However, SWE was considerably more than the MID for most of the participants to decide undergoing surgical adjunctive procedures to reduce the time of therapy. The participants required smaller SWE to undergo non-surgical procedures compared to surgical procedures.

CONCLUSION

The MID in the treatment duration is one month for both treatment durations 12 and 24 months. Patients require a greater SWE than the MID to undergo adjunctive procedures to shorten the duration, particularly for surgical procedures.

Minimal important difference in weight loss following bariatric surgery: Enhancing BODY-Q interpretability

BODY-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure for comprehensive assessment of outcomes specific to patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The clinical utility of BODY-Q is hampered by the lack of guidance on score interpretation. This study aimed to determine minimal important difference (MID) for assessment of BODY-Q. Prospective BODY-Q data from Denmark and the Netherlands pre- and post-bariatric surgery were collected. Two distribution-based methods were used to estimate MID by 0.2 standard deviations of baseline scores and the mean standardized response change of scores from baseline to 3-years postoperatively. In total, 5476 assessments from 2253 participants were included of which 1628 (72.3%) underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 586 (26.0%) sleeve gastrectomy, 33 (1.5%) gastric banding, and 6 (0.03%) other surgeries. The mean age was 45.1 ± 10.9 with a mean BMI of 46.6 ± 9.6. Baseline MID ranged from 1 to 4 in health-related quality of life (HRQL) and from 2 to 8 in appearance scales. The mean change of scores ranged from 4 to 5 in HRQL and from 4 to 7 in the appearance scales. The estimated MID for the change in BODY-Q HRQL and appearance scales ranged from 3 to 8 and is recommended for use to interpret BODY-Q scores and assess treatment effects in bariatric surgery.

Minimal important difference in postoperative morphine consumption after hip and knee arthroplasty using nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness as anchors

BACKGROUND

Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges-Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and quantile regression.

RESULTS

The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4-8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2-8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (-4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events.

CONCLUSIONS

In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0-24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption.

Validation of Constant Work Rate Cycling Endurance Time for Use in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Clinical Trials

Rationale: A COPD Foundation working group sought to identify measures of exercise endurance, a meaningful aspect of physical functioning in everyday life among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that is not fully accepted in regulatory decision making, hampering drug development. Objectives: To demonstrate, as we previously asserted (Casaburi COPD 2022;9:252), that constant work rate cycling endurance time is an appropriate exercise endurance measure in patients with COPD. Methods: To validate this assertion, we assembled an integrated database of endurance time responses, including 8 bronchodilator (2,166 subjects) and 15 exercise training (3,488 subjects) studies (Casaburi COPD 2022;9:520). Results: Construct validity was demonstrated: 1) peak physiologic and perceptual responses were similar for constant work rate and incremental cycling; 2) after bronchodilator therapy, there were greater increases in endurance time in patients with more severe airflow limitation; 3) after exercise training, endurance time increases were similar across airflow limitation severities; and 4) there were correlations between changes in endurance time and changes in mechanistically related physiologic and perceptual variables. Test-retest reliability was demonstrated, with consistency of changes in endurance time at two time points after the intervention. Responsiveness was confirmed, with significant increases in endurance time after active (but not placebo) bronchodilator therapy, with greater increases seen with more severe airflow limitation and after exercise training. On the basis of regression analysis using multiple anchor variables, the minimum important difference for endurance time increase is estimated to be approximately 1 minute. Conclusions: Constant work rate cycling endurance time is a valid exercise endurance measure in COPD, suitable for contributing to the evaluation of treatment benefit supporting regulatory decision making and evidence-based therapeutic recommendations.

Anchor-based minimal important difference values are often sensitive to the distribution of the change score

PURPOSE

Anchor-based studies are today the most popular approach to determine a minimal important difference value for an outcome variable. However, a variety of construction methods for such values do exist. This constitutes a challenge to the field. In order to distinguish between more or less adequate construction methods, meaningful minimal requirements can be helpful. For example, minimal important difference values should not reflect the intervention(s) the patients are exposed to in the study used for construction, as they should later allow to compare interventions. This requires that they are not sensitive to the distribution of the change score observed. This study aims at investigating to which degree established construction methods fulfil this minimal requirement.

METHODS

Six constructions methods were considered, covering very popular and recently suggested methods. The sensitivity of MID values to the distribution of the change score was investigated in a simulation study for these six construction methods.

RESULTS

Five out of six construction methods turned out to yield MID values which are sensitive to the distribution of the change score to a degree that questions their usefulness. Insensitivity can be obtained by using construction methods based solely on an estimate of the conditional distribution of the anchor variable given the change score.

CONCLUSION

In future the computation of MID values should be based on construction methods avoiding sensitivity to the distribution of the change score.

Ingelsrud L, Roos EM, Silbernagel KG, Snyder-Mackler L, Risberg MA. Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for IKDC-SKF and KOOS at the 10-Year Follow-up After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Study From the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort

Background

Clinicians need thresholds for the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and Treatment Failure to interpret group-based patient-reported outcome measures after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Validated thresholds that are crucial for accurately discerning patient symptom state and facilitating effective interpretation have not been determined for long-term follow-up after ACL injury.

Purpose

To calculate and validate thresholds for PASS and Treatment Failure for the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales at the 10-year follow-up after ACL injury.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 163 participants with unilateral ACL injury (treated with reconstruction or rehabilitation alone) from the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort were included. Thresholds for PASS were calculated for IKDC-SKF and KOOS subscales using anchor-based predictive modeling and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Too few participants had self-reported Treatment Failure to calculate thresholds for that outcome. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to derive 95% CIs. The criterion validity of the predictive modeling and ROC-derived thresholds were assessed by comparing actual patient-reported PASS outcome with the calculated PASS outcome for each method of calculation and calculating their positive and negative predictive values with respect to the anchor questions.

Results

A total of 127 (78%) participants reported satisfactory symptom state. Predictive modeling PASS thresholds (95% CIs) were 76.2 points (72.1-79.4 points) for IKDC-SKF, 85.4 points (80.9-89.2 points) for KOOS Pain, 76.5 points (67.8-84.7 points) for KOOS Symptoms, 93.8 points (90.1-96.9 points) for KOOS activities of daily living, 71.6 points (63.4-77.7 points) for KOOS Sports, and 59.0 points (53.7-63.9 points) for KOOS quality of life (QoL). Predictive modeling thresholds classified 81% to 93% of the participants as having satisfactory symptom state, whereas ROC-derived thresholds classified >50% as unsatisfied. The thresholds for IKDC-SKF, KOOS Sports, and KOOS QoL resulted in the most accurate percentages of PASS among all identified thresholds and therefore demonstrate the highest validity.

Conclusion

Predictive modeling provided valid PASS thresholds for IKDC-SKF and KOOS at the 10-year follow-up after ACL injury. The thresholds for IKDC-SKF, KOOS Sports, and KOOS QoL should be used when determining satisfactory outcomes. ROC-derived thresholds result in substantial misclassification rates of the participants who reported satisfactory symptom state.

A first look at the reliability, validity and responsiveness of L-PF-35 dyspnea domain scores in fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis

BACKGROUND

Dyspnea impairs quality of life (QOL) in patients with fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (FHP). The Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis questionnaire (L-PF) assesses symptoms, their impacts and PF-related QOL in patients with any form of PF. Its scores have not undergone validation analyses in an FHP cohort.

METHODS

We used data from the Pirfenidone in FHP trial to examine reliability, validity and responsiveness of the L-PF-35 Dyspnea domain score (Dyspnea) and to estimate its meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) threshold for worsening. Lack of suitable anchors precluded conducting analyses for other L-PF-35 scores.

RESULTS

At baseline, Dyspnea's internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient alpha) was 0.85; there were significant correlations with all four anchors (University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire scores r = 0.81, St. George's Activity domain score r = 0.82, percent predicted forced vital capacity r = 0.37, and percent predicted diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide r = 0.37). Dyspnea was significantly different between anchor subgroups (e.g., lowest percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) vs. highest, 33.5 ± 18.5 vs. 11.1 ± 9.8, p = 0.01). There were significant correlations between changes in Dyspnea and changes in anchor scores at all trial time points. Longitudinal models further confirmed responsiveness. The MWPC threshold estimate for worsening was 6.6 points (range 5-8).

CONCLUSION

The L-PF-35 Dyspnea domain appears to possess acceptable psychometric properties for assessing dyspnea in patients with FHP. Because instrument validation is never accomplished with one study, additional research is needed to build on the foundation these analyses provide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The data for the analyses presented in this manuscript were generated in a trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov; the identifier was NCT02958917.

Pooled Minimal Clinically Important Differences of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test in Patients With Early Subacute Stroke: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

Balance problems are common in patients with stroke, and the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) is a reliable and valid assessment tool for measuring balance function. Determining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is crucial for assessing treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to determine the MCID of the Mini-BESTest in patients with early subacute stroke.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter study, 53 patients with early subacute stroke undergoing rehabilitation in inpatient units were included. The mean age of the patients was 72.6 (SD = 12.2) years. The Mini-BESTest, which consists of 14 items assessing various aspects of balance function, including anticipatory postural adjustments, postural responses, sensory orientation, and dynamic gait, was used as the assessment tool. The global rating of change (GRC) scales completed by the participants and physical therapists were used as external anchors to calculate the MCID. The GRC scale measured subjective improvement in balance function, ranging from -3 (very significantly worse) to +3 (very significantly better), with a GRC score of ≥+2 considered as meaningful improvement. Four methods were used to calculate the MCID: mean of participants with GRC of 2, receiver operating characteristic-based method, predictive modeling method, and adjustment of the predictive modeling method based on the rate of improvement. From the MCID values obtained using these methods, a single pooled MCID value was calculated.

RESULTS

The MCID values for the Mini-BESTest obtained through the 4 methods ranged from 3.2 to 4.5 points when using the physical therapist's GRC score as the anchor but could not be calculated using the participant's GRC score. The pooled MCID value for the Mini-BESTest was 3.8 (95% CI = 2.9-5.0).

CONCLUSIONS

The Mini-BESTest MCID obtained in this study is valuable for identifying improvements in balance function among patients with early subacute stroke.

IMPACT

Determination of the MCID is valuable for evaluating treatment effectiveness. The study findings provide clinicians with practical values that can assist in interpreting Mini-BESTest results and assessing treatment effectiveness.

30 years with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)

This narrative review describes the development and use of patient-reported outcomes over 30 years, focusing on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). KOOS is a five-subscale patient-reported instrument intended for use from the time of knee injury to the development of osteoarthritis. Numerous studies have confirmed that the psychometric properties of the KOOS and its short-form KOOS-12 are acceptable. More recent research has focused on the use and interpretation of KOOS scores in clinical trials using thresholds, such as minimal important differences, patient-acceptable symptom states, and treatment failure. As an indication of KOOS's popularity, the total 3854 PubMed results for KOOS have increased exponentially since the first KOOS paper was published 25 years ago and now seem to have plateaued at around 650 annually. The selected articles are not based on a systematic search, but on the author's own publications, reading, and literature search that grew organically from that.

A Review of Meaningful Change Thresholds for EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G Within Oncology

OBJECTIVES

This literature review provides an overview of meaningful change thresholds for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) used across hematological cancers and solid tumors (melanoma, lung, bladder, and prostate).

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant oncology publications from 2016 to 2021. Label claims from the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for 7 recently approved drugs (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, glasdegib, gilteritinib, tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, and daratumumab plus hyaluronidase-fihj) were reviewed.

RESULTS

Publications providing guidance on meaningful change thresholds for the QLQ-C30 displayed a growing trend away from broad "legacy" thresholds of 10 points for all QLQ-C30 scales), toward deriving "contemporary" thresholds (eg, subscale specific, population specific). Contemporary publications generally provide guidance on selecting thresholds for specific scales that account for improved or worsening thresholds (eg, QLQ-C30 subscales). This trend was not clear for FACT-G, with less new guidance available. Most clinical trials used in regulatory label submissions have used thresholds of 10 points for the QLQ-C30 subscales and 3 to 7 points for the FACT-G total score. Despite the availability of more recent guidelines, contemporary meaningful change thresholds seem slow to emerge in the published literature and regulatory labels.

CONCLUSIONS

Trialists should consider using contemporary thresholds, rather than legacy thresholds, for QLQ-C30 endpoints. Thresholds derived for a similar patient-population should be used where available. Further work is required to provide these across a broader range of cancer sites.

Different doses and courses of omalizumab for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

The stability, efficacy, and safety of omalizumab at different doses and regimens for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) are yet to be studied.

Objective

A systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis (MA) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in CSU.

Methods

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of administering omalizumab versus placebo for CSU were searched. Random-effects MAs were performed using planned subgroup analyses. TSA was performed to control for the risk of random errors and assess the stability of our MA results. Publication bias was visually assessed using a contour-enhanced funnel plot and the trim-and-fill method. The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.

Results

Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Omalizumab had remarkable effects on the patient percentage of the weekly urticaria activity score is zero (UAS = 0) [RR 4.64, 95% CI (3.38, 6.37)], percentage of no angioedema-burdened days [MD 3.15, 95% CI (0.10, 6.19], patient percentage of UAS ≤6 [RR 3.05, 95% CI (2.46, 3.78)], and patient percentage of the weekly itch severity score minimally important difference (ISS7 MID) [RR 1.50, 95% CI (1.36, 1.66)]. Omalizumab was well tolerated across studies [RR 0.98, 95% CI (0.90, 1.08)]. TSA confirmed the above results, except for "the percentage of no angioedema-burdened day".

Conclusion

Among the different doses and courses assessed, omalizumab (300 mg, 12 weeks) can be recommended as an effective treatment for patients with CSU. However, whether omalizumab improves angioedema requires further investigation. The clinical management of angioedema accompanying CSU requires further attention.

Validation of the Investigator Global Assessment of Chronic Hand Eczema (IGA-CHE): a new clinician reported outcome measure of CHE severity

The Investigator Global Assessment of Chronic Hand Eczema (IGA-CHE) is a novel Clinician-Reported Outcome measure that allows investigators to assess cross-sectional CHE global disease severity using clinical characteristics of erythema, scaling, lichenification/hyperkeratosis, vesiculation, oedema, and fissures as guidelines for overall severity assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the IGA-CHE for use as an outcome measure in CHE clinical trials and clinical practice. Psychometric analyses were performed using data from a sample of 280 patients with moderate to severe CHE from a phase 3 trial of delgocitinib cream, pooled across treatment groups. Test-retest reliability results were moderate to strong with kappa coefficients ranging from 0.63 to 0.76. Correlations with measures assessing related concepts were moderate or strong (range 0.65-0.72) and exceeded a priori hypotheses, providing evidence of convergent validity. Known-groups validity was supported by statistically significant differences between severity groups (< 0.001). Within-group effect sizes were consistently larger for improved groups compared to stable groups, providing evidence of ability to detect change. Anchor-based analyses generated within-subject meaningful change estimates ranging from - 0.8 to - 2.3. A correlation weighted average suggested a single value of - 1.7 in change from baseline. These findings provide evidence the IGA-CHE scale has strong reliability, construct validity, and ability to detect change, supporting its use as an endpoint in CHE clinical trials and clinical practice. Based on the evidence, 2-level changes in IGA-CHE score are considered a conservative meaningful change threshold; however, findings also indicate 1-level change in IGA-CHE scores reflects a clinically meaningful improvement for patients.Clinical trial registration: NCT04871711.

The minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The minimal important difference is a valuable metric in ascertaining the clinical relevance of a treatment, offering valuable guidance in patient management. There is a lack of available evidence concerning this metric in the context of outcomes related to female urinary incontinence, which might negatively impact clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures associated with urinary incontinence, calculated according to both distribution- and anchor-based methods.

METHODS

This is a systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy including the main terms for urinary incontinence and minimal important difference were used in five different databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus) in 09 June 2021 and were updated in January 09, 2024 with no limits for date, language or publication status. Studies that provided minimal important difference (distribution- or anchor-based methods) for patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence outcomes were included. The study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two different researchers. Only studies that reported the minimal important difference according to anchor-based methods were assessed by credibility and certainty of the evidence. When possible, absolute minimal important differences were calculated for each study separately according to the mean change of the group of participants that slightly improved.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. Thirteen questionnaires with their respective minimal important differences reported according to distribution (effect size, standard error of measurement, standardized response mean) and anchor-based methods were found. Most of the measures for anchor methods did not consider the smallest difference identified by the participants to calculate the minimal important difference. All reports related to anchor-based methods presented low credibility and very low certainty of the evidence. We pooled 20 different estimates of minimal important differences using data from primary studies, considering different anchors and questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high variability around the minimal important difference related to patient-reported outcome measures for urinary incontinence outcomes according to the method of analysis, questionnaires, and anchors used, however, the credibility and certainty of the evidence to support these is still limited.

Establishing the Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes after Operatively Treated Tibial Plateau Fractures

OBJECTIVES

Define patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds and factors affecting PASS thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) following operatively treated tibial plateau fractures.

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Single Level I academic trauma center.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

All patients (n = 159) who underwent fixation of a tibial plateau fracture from 2016 to 2021 and completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at minimum 1-year follow-up were enrolled for the study.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

PASS thresholds for global outcome (PASS-Global), pain (PASS-Pain), and function (PASS-Function) were determined using anchor-based questions such as "How satisfied are you today with your injured lower extremity?" with answer choices of very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, and very unsatisfied. PASS thresholds for each PROM were calculated using 3 methods: (1) 80% specificity, (2) 75th percentile, and (3) Youden Index.

RESULTS

Sixty percent of patients were satisfied with their global outcome and 53% with function. Using 80% specificity, 75th percentile, and Youden Index, PASS-Global thresholds were 48.5, 44.5, and 47.9 for PROMIS-PF and 56.3, 56.2, and 56.3 for KOOS-QOL, respectively. PASS-Pain threshold for KOOS-Pain was 84.4, 80.6, and 80.6, respectively. PASS-Function thresholds were 48.9, 46.8, and 48 for PROMIS-PF and 94.1, 90.2, and 86.8 for KOOS-ADL, respectively. Younger patients and those with bicondylar fractures or infections were associated with significantly lower PASS-Pain thresholds. Schatzker II fractures, lateral column involvement, or isolated lateral approach resulted in significantly higher PASS-Global and PASS-Function thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

This study defines global, functional, and pain PASS thresholds for tibial plateau fractures. Patients with bicondylar fractures, infections, and medial column involvement were more often unsatisfied. These thresholds are valuable references to identify patients who have attained satisfactory outcomes and to counsel patients with risk factors for unsatisfactory outcomes following tibial plateau fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Meaningful Change Thresholds for the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Change from baseline score on the validated Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD) is a widely used, patient-reported end point in clinical trials for psoriasis. Meaningful score change thresholds anchored to patient-reported assessments have not been established in a clinical trial setting.

Objective

To evaluate meaningful within-patient score change thresholds for the PSSD using data from the phase 3 Program to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Deucravacitinib, a Selective TYK2 Inhibitor (POETYK), PSO-1 clinical trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib vs placebo and apremilast among adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this predefined analysis using data from the POETYK PSO-1 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial, conducted from August 7, 2018, to September 2, 2020, 666 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis completed the PSSD daily throughout the trial. Meaningful change thresholds were derived by anchoring mean PSSD score change from baseline to week 16 to category improvements on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) and the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S).

Interventions

Deucravacitinib, 6 mg, once daily; placebo; or apremilast, 30 mg, twice daily.

Main Outcome and Measures

The main outcome was score change from baseline to week 16 on the PSSD, anchored to the PGI-C and PGI-S.

Results

The trial included 666 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.1 [13.4] years; 453 men [68.0%]). Three thresholds were identified using an analysis set of 609 patients. Score improvement of at least 15 points from baseline reflected meaningful within-patient change anchored to the PGI-C. Score improvements of 25 points were supported by both the PGI-C and the PGI-S, while a 30-point score change identified patients with greater improvements in their psoriasis symptoms and signs.

Conclusions and Relevance

This analysis suggests that PSSD score improvements of 15, 25, or 30 points represent increasing improvements in disease burden that are meaningful to patients with psoriasis.

Minimal clinically important difference of the functional independence measure in older adults with hip fracture

PURPOSE

To investigate the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) from a clinician's perspective in hip-fractured elderly undergoing inpatient rehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of 701 hip-fractured elderly admitted to our rehabilitation institute were retrospectively collected. Ten a priori hypotheses were formulated.

RESULTS

The effect size of the FIM scores after treatment were large (total = 1.38, motor = 1.78). Moderate correlations were found between the change total score of FIM and Barthel Index (BI, rs = 0.51), Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC, rs = 0.52) and a checklist regarding participants' independence in transfers (rs = 0.59). The area under the receiving operating characteristics were 0.82, 0.81, and 0.85 when BI, FAC and checklist were used as anchors, respectively. Based on these findings, the FIM showed high responsiveness (9/10 hypotheses met). Triangulation of findings showed that MCIDs of 22 and 21 points were the most appropriate for the FIM total and motor score, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The FIM scale is appropriate for assessing independence and functional recovery in hip-fractured elderly. Improvements of 22 and 21 points at the total and motor FIM were identified as indicators of minimal clinical change in those admitted to a rehabilitation facility with an FIM total score between 40 and 80.

The definition of treatment resistance in anxiety disorders: a Delphi method-based consensus guideline

Anxiety disorders are very prevalent and often persistent mental disorders, with a considerable rate of treatment resistance which requires regulatory clinical trials of innovative therapeutic interventions. However, an explicit definition of treatment-resistant anxiety disorders (TR-AD) informing such trials is currently lacking. We used a Delphi method-based consensus approach to provide internationally agreed, consistent and clinically useful operational criteria for TR-AD in adults. Following a summary of the current state of knowledge based on international guidelines and an available systematic review, a survey of free-text responses to a 29-item questionnaire on relevant aspects of TR-AD, and an online consensus meeting, a panel of 36 multidisciplinary international experts and stakeholders voted anonymously on written statements in three survey rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥75% of the panel agreeing with a statement. The panel agreed on a set of 14 recommendations for the definition of TR-AD, providing detailed operational criteria for resistance to pharmacological and/or psychotherapeutic treatment, as well as a potential staging model. The panel also evaluated further aspects regarding epidemiological subgroups, comorbidities and biographical factors, the terminology of TR-AD vs. "difficult-to-treat" anxiety disorders, preferences and attitudes of persons with these disorders, and future research directions. This Delphi method-based consensus on operational criteria for TR-AD is expected to serve as a systematic, consistent and practical clinical guideline to aid in designing future mechanistic studies and facilitate clinical trials for regulatory purposes. This effort could ultimately lead to the development of more effective evidence-based stepped-care treatment algorithms for patients with anxiety disorders.

Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of antidepressants: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30% of patients experience substantial improvement in depression after 2 months without treatment, and 45% with antidepressants. The smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) refers to an intervention's smallest beneficial effect over a comparison patients deem worthwhile given treatment burdens (harms, expenses and inconveniences), but is undetermined for antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE

Estimating the SWD of commonly prescribed antidepressants for depression compared to no treatment.

METHODS

The SWD was estimated as a patient-required difference in response rates between antidepressants and no treatment after 2 months. An online cross-sectional survey using Prolific, MQ Mental Health and Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing services in the UK and USA between October 2022 and January 2023 garnered participants (N=935) that were a mean age of 44.1 (SD=13.9) and 66% women (n=617).

FINDINGS

Of 935 participants, 124 reported moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms but were not in treatment, 390 were in treatment and 495 reported absent-to-mild symptoms with or without treatment experiences. The median SWD was a 20% (IQR=10-30%) difference in response rates for people with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, not in treatment, and willing to consider antidepressants, and 25% (IQR=10-35%) for the full sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Our observed SWDs mean that the current 15% antidepressant benefit over no treatment was sufficient for one in three people to accept antidepressants given the burdens, but two in three expected greater treatment benefits.

IMPLICATIONS

While a minority may be satisfied with the best currently available antidepressants, more effective and/or less burdensome medications are needed, with more attention given to patient perspectives.

Minimal important change and difference in health outcome: An overview of approaches, concepts, and methods

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of approaches, concepts, and methods used to define and assess minimal important change and difference in health outcome.

METHOD

A narrative review of the literature, guided by a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

We distinguish between (i) interpretation of health outcome in individuals versus groups, (ii) change within individuals or groups versus difference between change within individuals or groups; and (iii) the responder approach (based on the proportion of patients that obtain a defined response) versus the group average approach (based on the average amount of change in a group). We review approaches, concepts, and methods.

CONCLUSION

By bringing together and juxtaposing various approaches, concepts, and methods, we set a precursory step in the direction of consensus building in the field concerned with defining and assessing minimal important change and difference in health outcome. We emphasize the need for conceptual clarification and terminological standardization. We argue that assessing minimal importance of change and difference in health outcome is essentially a value judgment involving a range of considerations and perspectives.

Evaluation of DermSat-7 for Assessing Treatment Satisfaction in Patients with Acne

Importance

Treatment satisfaction is important to achieving therapeutic success in patients with inflammatory dermatological diseases, such as acne.

Objective

To evaluate the structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity of the DermSat-7, a questionnaire-based measure of treatment satisfaction, in patients with acne seen in routine clinical practice.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included adults with acne who were fluent in English and treated at an outpatient clinic at Brigham and Women's Hospital between July 2022 and May 2023. At each visit, patients completed a self-administered, patient-reported outcome questionnaire, including a patient global assessment (PGA) of their acne severity and the DermSat-7. The DermSat-7 consists of 7 items assessing 3 domains of treatment: effectiveness (3 items), convenience (3 items), and overall satisfaction (1 item). At subsequent visits, patients were asked an anchor item related to change in disease severity ("How has your acne changed compared to your last visit?") that was scored on a 7-point scale (-3 = much worse to 3 = much better). Also at each visit, a dermatologist completed the Comprehensive Acne Severity Scale (CASS).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were structural validity (assessed by factor analysis), internal consistency (assessed by Cronbach α), and construct validity (assessed using linear regression models and Pearson correlation coefficients).

Results

The analysis included 142 patients with acne (mean [SD] age, 25.1 [5.1] years; 96 females [67.6%]) taking acne medication who completed the DermSat-7. Exploratory factor and confirmatory factor analysis supported the unidimensionality of the 3 DermSat-7 domains. Cronbach α values of 0.89 and 0.80 supported good internal consistency in the effectiveness and convenience domains, respectively. Known-groups validity was supported by increasing DermSat-7 effectiveness and overall satisfaction scores with increasing levels of positive change in disease severity (linear regression coefficient, 7.51; 95% CI, 4.94-10.08; P < .001). Construct validity was further supported by moderate correlations with the anchor, PGA, and CASS scores (effectiveness domain: anchor r = 0.567, PGA r = -0.538, and CASS r = -0.485; overall satisfaction domain: anchor r = 0.467, PGA r = -0.486, and CASS r = -0.489).

Conclusion and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found that the DermSat-7 may be an effective tool for measuring treatment satisfaction, particularly effectiveness and overall satisfaction domains, among patients with acne. Further research is needed to examine additional measurement properties of the DermSat-7, such as content validity and interpretability, as well as to validate the DermSat-7 in other populations of patients with acne.

European Glaucoma Society - A guide on surgical innovation for glaucoma

PROLOGUE: Glaucoma surgery has been, for many decades now, dominated by the universal gold standard which is trabeculectomy augmented with antimetabolites. Tubes also came into the scene to complement what we use to call conventional or traditional glaucoma surgery. More recently we experienced a changing glaucoma surgery environment with the "advent" of what we have become used to calling Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). What is the unmet need, what is the gap that these newcomers aim to fill? Hippocrates taught us "bring benefit, not harm" and new glaucoma techniques and devices aim to provide safer surgery compared to conventional surgery. For the patient, but also for the clinician, safety is important. Is more safety achieved with new glaucoma surgery and, if so, is it associated with better, equivalent, or worse efficacy? Is new glaucoma surgery intended to replace conventional surgery or to complement it as an 'add-on' to what clinicians already have in their hands to manage glaucoma? Which surgery should be chosen for which patient? What are the options? Are they equivalent? These are too many questions for the clinician! What are the answers to the questions? What is the evidence to support answers? Do we need more evidence and how can we produce high-quality evidence? This EGS Guide explores the changing and challenging glaucoma surgery environment aiming to provide answers to these questions. The EGS uses four words to highlight a continuum: Innovation, Education, Communication, and Implementation. Translating innovation to successful implementation is crucially important and requires high-quality evidence to ensure steps forward to a positive impact on health care when it comes to implementation. The vision of EGS is to provide the best possible well-being and minimal glaucomainduced visual disability in individuals with glaucoma within an affordable healthcare system. In this regard, assessing the changes in glaucoma surgery is a pivotal contribution to better care. As mentioned, this Guide aims to provide answers to the crucial questions above. However, every clinician is aware that answers may differ for every person: an individualised approach is needed. Therefore, there will be no uniform answer for all situations and all patients. Clinicians would need, through the clinical method and possibly some algorithm, to reach answers and decisions at the individual level. In this regard, evidence is needed to support clinicians to make decisions. Of key importance in this Guide is to provide an overview of existing evidence on glaucoma surgery and specifically on recent innovations and novel devices, but also to set standards in surgical design and reporting for future studies on glaucoma surgical innovation. Designing studies in surgery is particularly challenging because of many subtle variations inherent to surgery and hence multiple factors involved in the outcome, but even more because one needs to define carefully outcomes relevant to the research question but also to the future translation into clinical practice. In addition this Guide aims to provide clinical recommendations on novel procedures already in use when insufficient evidence exists. EGS has a long tradition to provide guidance to the ophthalmic community in Europe and worldwide through the EGS Guidelines (now in their 5th Edition). The EGS leadership recognized that the changing environment in glaucoma surgery currently represents a major challenge for the clinician, needing specific guidance. Therefore, the decision was made to issue this Guide on Glaucoma Surgery in order to help clinicians to make appropriate decisions for their patients and also to provide the framework and guidance for researchers to improve the quality of evidence in future studies. Ultimately this Guide will support better Glaucoma Care in accordance with EGS's Vision and Mission. Fotis Topouzis EGS President

Minimal important difference of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in persons with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item survey (WHODAS-12) is a questionnaire developed by the WHO to measure functioning across health conditions, cultures, and settings. WHODAS-12 consists of a subset of the 36 items of WHODAS-2.0 36-item questionnaire. Little is known about the minimal important difference (MID) of WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain (LBP), which would be useful to determine whether rehabilitation improves functioning to an extent that is meaningful for people experiencing the condition. Our objective was to estimate an anchor-based MID for WHODAS-12 questionnaire in persons with chronic LBP.

METHODS

We analyzed data from two cohort studies (identified in our previous systematic review) conducted in Europe that measured functioning using the WHODAS-36 in adults with chronic LBP. Eligible participants were adults with chronic LBP with scores on another measure as an anchor to indicate participants with small but important changes in functioning over time [Short-form-36 Physical Functioning (SF36-PF) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] at baseline and follow-up (study 1: 3-months post-treatment; study 2: 1-month post-discharge from hospital). WHODAS-12 scores were constructed as sums of the 12 items (scored 0-4), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 48. We calculated the mean WHODAS-12 score in participants who achieved a small but meaningful improvement on SF36-PF or ODI at follow-up. A meaningful improvement was an MID of 4-16 on ODI or 5-16 on SF36-PF.

RESULTS

Of 70 eligible participants in study 1 (mean age = 54.1 years, SD = 14.7; 69% female), 18 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on SF-36 PF. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 3.22/48 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64). Of 89 eligible participants in study 2 (mean age = 65.5 years, SD = 11.5; 61% female), 50 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on ODI. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 5.99/48 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Using an anchor-based approach, the MID of WHODAS-12 is estimated at -3.22 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64) or -5.99 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79) in adults with chronic LBP. These MID values inform the utility of WHODAS-12 in measuring functioning to determine whether rehabilitation or other health services achieve a minimal difference that is meaningful to patients with chronic LBP.

Country-specific reference values for PROMIS® pain, physical function and participation measures compared to US reference values

INTRODUCTION

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®) is commonly used across medical conditions. To facilitate interpretation of scores across countries, we calculated Dutch reference values for PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), Pain Behavior (PROMIS-PB), Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (PROMIS-APSRA), and Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities (PROMIS-SSRA), as compared to US reference values.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A panel completed full PROMIS-PF (n=1310), PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-PB (n=1052), and PROMIS-APSRA and PROMIS-SSRA (n=1002) item banks and reported their level of health per domain (no, mild, moderate, severe limitations). T-scores were calculated by sample and subgroups (age, gender, self-reported level of domain). Distribution-based and anchor-based thresholds for mild, moderate, and severe scores were determined.

RESULTS

Mean T-scores were close to the US mean of 50 for PROMIS-PF (49.8) and PROMIS-APSRA (50.6), lower for PROMIS-SSRA (47.5) and higher for PROMIS-PI (54.9) and PROMIS-PB (52.0). Distribution-based thresholds for mild, moderate, and severe scores were comparable to US recommended cut-off values (except for PROMIS-PI) but participants reported limitations 'earlier' than suggested thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Dutch reference values were close to US reference values for some PROMIS domains but not all. We recommend country-specific reference values to facilitate worldwide PROMIS use.KEY MESSAGESPROMIS offers universally applicable IRT-based efficient and patient-friendly measures to assess commonly relevant patient-reported outcomes across medical conditions.To support the use of PROMIS in daily clinical practice and research across the world, country-specific general population reference values should be obtained.More research is necessary to obtain reliable and valid cut-off values for what constitutes mild, moderate and severe scores from the patients' perspective.

Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Treatments for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Product Properties

INTRODUCTION

There are many intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) products on the market that have known intrinsic differences in molecular size, source, and structure. The current review summarizes existing evidence describing and assessing these differences, while also identifying whether these differences have an impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This systematic review summarized all literature that specifically addresses IA-HA product differences. Included studies summarized basic science and mechanism of action comparisons of IA-HA product differences, or systematic reviews that assess differences in clinical outcomes between IA-HA product differences.

RESULTS

A total of 20 investigations assessed basic science differences between IA-HA products, while 20 investigations provided assessments of the clinical outcome differences between IA-HA product characteristics. The published basic science literature provided a differentiation between low molecular weight (LMW) and high molecular weight (HMW) HA with regard to changes within the synovial fluid, driven by the interactions that these molecules have with receptors in the joint space. These differences in receptor interaction manifest within clinical outcomes, as meta-analyses comparing pain relief after IA-HA suggest that pain reduction is superior in patients who receive HMW HA as opposed to LMW HA.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights differences between IA-HA characteristics, and how important the molecular weight, derivation of the product, and structure are to variances in reported clinical outcomes to treat osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. HMW IA-HAs have shown greater efficacy compared to the alternative of LMW products, while avian-derived and cross-linked products have potentially demonstrated an increase in inflammatory events over non-avian-derived, non-cross-linked HAs.

Pain as a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Pyoderma Gangrenosum

This survey study investigates the minimal important difference in pain indicating that a patient with pyoderma gangrenosum may be responding to treatment.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Use in Guidelines Published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology: A Review

TOPIC

We reviewed the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the treatment of ophthalmologic conditions as recommended by the Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patient-reported outcome measures are standardized instruments that provide information regarding a patient's health status or health-related quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used to inform study end points in ophthalmology studies. However, the extent to which PROMs are ultimately informing patient management recommendations in ophthalmology as part of CPGs remains an area of evidence gap.

METHODS

We included all CPGs published by the AAO from inception to June 2022. We also included all primary studies and systematic reviews cited in the treatment sections of the CPGs evaluating treatment of an ophthalmic condition. The primary outcome was the frequency of PROMs discussed in CPGs and in cited studies evaluating treatment. Secondary outcomes included frequency of minimal important difference (MID) use to contextualize PROM results and percentage of strong and discretionary recommendations supported by PROMs. We published a study protocol a priori on PROSPERO (CRD42022307427). Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We assessed risk of bias using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

RESULTS

We identified 24 eligible CPGs, providing 2458 cited studies (2191 primary, 267 secondary) evaluating treatment of eye conditions. Ten CPGs (41.7%) reported consideration of PROMs. Of these, 31 of 94 (33%) recommendations were informed by studies evaluating a PROM as an outcome. Across all studies cited in the development of CPGs, 221 (9.0%) used PROMs as a primary or secondary outcome, of which 4 PROM results (1.8%) were interpreted using an empirically determined MID. Overall, the risk of bias was low for all CPGs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, outcomes of PROMs are seldom used in ophthalmology CPGs published by the AAO and in cited primary and secondary research on treatments. When PROMs were considered, their interpretation was seldom based on an MID. To improve patient care, guideline developers may consider incorporating PROMs and applicable MIDs to inform key outcomes when formulating treatment recommendations.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

The difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance. The case of minimal important change, non-inferiority trials, and smallest worthwhile effect

Clinical relevance and statistical significance are different concepts, linked via the sample size calculation. Threshold values for detecting a minimal important change over time are frequently (mis)interpreted as a threshold for the clinical relevance of a difference between groups. The magnitude of a difference between groups that is considered clinically relevant directly impacts the sample size calculation, and thereby the statistical significance in clinical study outcomes. Especially in non-inferiority trials the threshold for clinical relevance, i.e. the predefined margin for non-inferiority, is a crucial choice. A truly inferior treatment will be accepted as non-inferior when this margin is chosen too large. The magnitude of a clinically relevant difference between groups should be carefully considered, by determining the smallest effect for each specific study that is considered worthwhile. This means taking into account the (dis)advantages of both study interventions in terms of benefits, harms, costs, and potential side effects. This article clarifies common sources of confusion, illustrates the implications for clinical research with an example and provides specific suggestions to improve the design and interpretation of clinical research.

From numbers to meaningful change: Minimal important change by using PROMIS in a cohort of fracture patients

INTRODUCTION

use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes measurement Information System (PROMIS®) is slowly increasing in patients with a fracture. Yet, minimal important change of PROMIS in patients with fractures has been addressed in a very limited number of studies. As the minimal important change (MIC) is important to interpret PROMIS-scores, the goal is to estimate the MIC for PROMIS physical function (PF), PROMIS pain interference (PI) and PROMIS ability to participate in social roles and activities (APSRA) in patients with a fracture. Secondly, the smallest detectable change was determined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A longitudinal cohort study on patients ≥ 18 years receiving surgical or non-surgical care for fractures was conducted. Patients completed PROMIS PF V1.1, PROMIS PI V1.1 and PROMIS APSRA V2.0. For follow-up, patients completed three additional anchor questions evaluating patient-reported improvement on a seven point rating scale. The predictive modeling method was used to estimate the MIC value of all three PROMIS questionnaires.

RESULTS

Hundred patients with a mean age of 55.4 ± 12.6 years were included of which sixty (60%) were female. Seventy-two (72%) patients were recovering from a surgical procedure. PROMIS-CAT T-scores of all PROMIS measures showed significant correlations with their anchor questions. The predictive modeling method showed a MIC value of +2.4 (n = 98) for PROMIS PF, -2.9 (n = 96) for PROMIS PI and +3.2 (n = 91) for PROMIS APSRA.

CONCLUSION

By using the anchor based predictive modeling method, PROMIS MIC-values for improvement of respectively +2.4 points on a T-score metric for PROMIS-PF, -2.9 for PROMIS-PI and +3.2 for PROMIS APSRA give the impression of being meaningful to patients. These values can be used in clinical practice for managing patient expectations; to inform on treatment results; and to assess if patients experience significant change. This in order to encourage patient centered care.

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state

PURPOSE

While patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) define value in spine surgery, several values such as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) help guide the interpretation of PROMs and identify thresholds of clinical significance. Significant variation exists in reported values and their calculation, so the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the spine surgery literature for metrics of clinical significance derived from PROMs.

METHODS

We conducted a query of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to January 1, 2023, for studies that derived quantitative metrics (e.g., SCB, MCID, PASS) from PROMs in the setting of spine surgery with minimum 1-year follow-up. Details regarding the specific PROMs were collected including which PROM was measured, whether anchor- or distribution-based methods were utilized, the specific calculations, and the recommended value for a given PROM based on all evaluated calculations.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies of 21,780 patients were included. The most commonly evaluated PROM-derived value was the MCID (n = 28), followed by PASS (n = 6) and SCB (n = 4). Twenty-one studies only utilized anchor-based calculations, 15 utilized both anchor-based and distribution-based methods, and one only utilized distribution-based calculations. The most commonly evaluated legacy PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (N = 11, MCID range 4-20) and visual analog scale back pain (N = 5, MCID range 0.5-4.6). All 10 studies that derived SCB or PASS utilized the receiver operating characteristic methods. Among the six studies deriving a PASS value, four only evaluated ODI, identifying PASS ranging from 5 to 22.

CONCLUSION

While calculated measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB exist, significant heterogeneity exists in the current literature. Current shortcomings include a wide variability of reported value thresholds across the literature, and limited applicability to more heterogenous patient populations than the targeted cohorts included in published investigations. Continued investigations that apply these methods to heterogenous, large-scale populations can help increase generalizability and validity of these measures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Determining minimal clinically important difference estimates following surgery for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine: analysis of the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

There is significant variability in minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria for lumbar spine surgery that suggests population and primary pathology specific thresholds may be required to help determine surgical success when using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to estimate MCID thresholds for 3 commonly used PROMs after surgical intervention for each of 4 common lumbar spine pathologies.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Observational longitudinal study of patients from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) national registry.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients undergoing surgery from 2015 to 2018 for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS; n = 856), degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS; n = 591), disc herniation (DH; n = 520) or degenerative disc disease (DDD n = 185) were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMs were collected presurgery and 1-year postsurgery: the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg Numeric Pain Rating Scales (NPRS). At 1-year, patients reported whether they were 'Much better'/'Better'/'Same'/'Worse'/'Much worse' compared to before their surgery. Responses to this item were used as the anchor in analyses to determine surgical MCIDs for benefit ('Much better'/'Better') and substantial benefit ('Much better').

METHODS

MCIDs for absolute and percentage change for each of the 3 PROMs were estimated using a receiving operating curve (ROC) approach, with maximization of Youden's index as primary criterion. Area under the curve (AUC) estimates, sensitivity, specificity and correct classification rates were determined. All analyses were conducted separately by pathology group.

RESULTS

MCIDs for ODI change ranged from -10.0 (DDD) to -16.9 (DH) for benefit, and -13.8 (LSS) to -22.0 (DS,DH) for substantial benefit. MCID for back and leg NPRS change were -2 to -3 for each group for benefit and -4.0 for substantial benefit for all groups on back NPRS. MCID estimates for percentage change varied by PROM and pathology group, ranging from -11.1% (ODI for DDD) to -50.0% (leg NPRS for DH) for benefit and from -40.0% (ODI for DDD) to -66.6% (leg NPRS for DH) for substantial benefit. Correct classification rates for all MCID thresholds ranged from 71% to 89% and were relatively lower for absolute vs percent change for those with high or low presurgical scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the use of generic MCID thresholds across pathologies in lumbar spine surgery is not recommended. For patients with relatively low or high presurgery PROM scores, MCIDs based on percentage change, rather than absolute change, appear generally preferable. These findings have applicability in clinical and research settings, and are important for future surgical prognostic work.

Reliability and responsiveness of the D12 and validity of its scores as a measure of dyspnoea severity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-related interstitial lung disease

BACKGROUND

Interstitial lung disease due to rheumatoid arthritis (RA-ILD) affects a substantial minority of patients with RA, inducing life-altering symptoms, impairing quality of life (QOL) and forcing patients to confront the potential for shortened survival. Dyspnoea is the predominant respiratory symptom of RA-ILD and a strong driver of QOL impairment in patients with it. The D12 is a 12-item questionnaire that assesses the physical and affective components of dyspnoea. It was one of a battery of patient-reported outcomes used in the double-blind, placebo-controlled TRAIL 1 trial of pirfenidone for RA-ILD. There is little information on the reliability, validity or responsiveness of the D12 in RA-ILD.

METHODS

In accordance with COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology, we conducted analyses on data from the TRAIL 1 trial to assess the measurement properties of the D12.

RESULTS

Internal consistency (α=0.95, 0.95, 0.95, 0.95 and 0.96 at baseline, 13, 26, 39 and 52 weeks) and test-retest reliability 0.85 (0.71 to 0.92) exceeded acceptability criteria. Well over the 75% benchmark of hypotheses (43/46=93%) around D12 measurement properties were confirmed. Known-groups validity was supported by significant differences between subgroups of patients with differing levels of dyspnoea (eg, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Activity score ≥50 vs <50, 9.36 (1.27) points, p<0.0001, with a large effect size=1.7) and physiological impairment at baseline. Longitudinal validity was supported by significant associations between D12 and anchor scores over time (eg, at 52 weeks, correlation between D12 change and SGRQ Activity change was 0.54, p<0.0001; between D12 change and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID) Functioning Component was 0.41, p<0.0001). A battery of analyses confirmed the responsiveness of D12 scores for capturing change in dyspnoea over time. We estimated the minimal within-patient change threshold for worsening as 3 points.

CONCLUSIONS

D12 scores possess acceptable measurement properties in RA-ILD, such that it can be used with confidence in this population to assess dyspnoea severity defined by its physical and affective components. As validation is an ongoing process, and never accomplished in a single study, additional research on the psychometric properties of the D12 in RA-ILD is encouraged.

Facial involvement is reflective of patients' global perception of vitiligo extent

BACKGROUND

The involvement of visible areas in vitiligo has been found to be correlated with increased psychiatric morbidity. Although multiple tools have been developed to assess vitiligo, no cutoff for improvement or worsening of vitiligo from a patient's perspective has been established.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Self-Assessment Vitiligo Extent Score (SA-VES) in patients with vitiligo and to evaluate, from the patient's perspective, the importance of the change in the involvement of visible areas (face and hands) in patients' overall perception of disease worsening or improving.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study in the context of the ComPaRe e-cohort. Adult patients with vitiligo were invited to answer online questionnaires. They completed the SA-VES twice, 1 year apart. In addition, patients answered a 5-point Likert anchor question aimed at assessing their perception of the evolution of the extent of their vitiligo. The MCID was calculated using distribution- and anchor-based approaches. Using ordinal logistic regression, the change of vitiliginous lesions on the face or hands was compared to the overall extent of vitiligo (patches on all body areas).

RESULTS

In total, 244 patients with vitiligo were included in the analyses; 20 (8%) were found to have an improvement in their vitiligo. The MCID in worsened patients was equal to a 1.3% body surface area [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.43] increase in the SA-VES. For participants with improved vitiligo, the MCID was equal to a decrease in total SA-VES of 1.3% (95% CI 0.867-1.697). Patients' perceptions of change in their vitiligo was increased sevenfold when it affected the face vs. the rest of the body.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in the facial SA-VES were highly correlated with patients' impressions of the extent of vitiligo.

Minimal important difference, patient acceptable symptom state and longitudinal validity of oxford elbow score and the quickDASH in patients with tennis elbow

BACKGROUND

The Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the short version of Disabilities of Arms, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) are common patient-reported outcomes for people with elbow problems. Our primary objective was to define thresholds for the Minimal Important Difference (MID) and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the OES and QuickDASH. The secondary aim was to compare the longitudinal validity of these outcome measures.

METHODS

We recruited 97 patients with clinically-diagnosed tennis elbow for a prospective observational cohort study in a pragmatic clinical setting. Fifty-five participants received no specific intervention, 14 underwent surgery (11 as primary treatment and 4 during follow-up), and 28 received either botulinum toxin injection or platelet rich plasma injection. We collected OES (0 to 100, higher is better) and QuickDASH (0 to 100, higher is worse), and global rating of change (as an external transition anchor question) at six weeks, three months, six months and 12 months. We defined MID and PASS values using three approaches. To assess the longitudinal validity of the measures, we calculated the Spearman's correlation coefficient between the change in the outcome scores and external transition anchor question, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. To assess signal-to-noise ratio, we calculated standardized response means.

RESULTS

Depending on the method, MID values ranged from 16 to 21 for OES Pain; 10 to 17 for OES Function; 14 to 28 for OES Social-psychological; 14 to 20 for OES Total score, and - 7 to -9 for QuickDASH. Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) cut offs were 74 to 84 for OES Pain; 88 to 91 for OES Function; 75 to 78 with OES Social-psychological; 80 to 81 with OES Total score and 19 to 23 with Quick-DASH. OES had stronger correlations with the anchor items, and AUC values suggested superior discrimination (between improved and not improved) compared with QuickDASH. OES also had superior signal-to-noise ratio compared with QuickDASH.

CONCLUSION

The study provides MID and PASS values for OES and QuickDASH. Due to better longitudinal validity, OES may be a better choice for clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02425982 (first registered April 24, 2015).

Interpreting the BREAST-Q for Breast-Conserving Therapy: Minimal Important Differences and Clinical Reference Values

BACKGROUND

The BREAST-Q is an important tool for evaluating patient satisfaction and quality of life in breast-conserving therapy (BCT) patients, but its clinical utility is limited by the lack of guidance on score interpretation. This study determines reference values and the minimal important difference (MID) for the BREAST-Q BCT module.

METHODS

A retrospective review of BCT patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from January 2011 to December 2021 was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize median BREAST-Q scores. Distribution-based analyses estimated MIDs based on 0.2 standard deviation of baseline BREAST-Q scores and 0.2 standardized response mean of the difference between baseline and 1-year postoperative BREAST-Q scores. MIDs for different clinical groupings based on body mass index, radiation, and reexcision also were estimated.

RESULTS

Overall, 8060 patients were included for determining reference values, and 5673 patients were included for estimating MIDs. Median BREAST-Q scores trended upwards and stabilized by 2 years after surgery for all domains except Physical Well-Being of the Chest, which decreased and stabilized by 2 years. A score interpretation tool, the Real-Time Engagement and Communication Tool, was created based on 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile scores trajectories. All MID estimates ranged from 3 to 5 points; 4 points was determined to be appropriate for use in clinical practice and research.

CONCLUSIONS

Reference values and MIDs are crucial to BREAST-Q score interpretation, which can lead to improved clinical evaluation and decision making and improved research methodology. Future research should validate this study's findings in different patient cohorts.

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale for Measuring Mobility-Related Goals in People With Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study's purpose was to investigate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) for measuring mobility-related goals in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

Data from 32 participants with MS who underwent 8 to 10 weeks of rehabilitation were analyzed (Expanded Disability Status Scale scores 1.0-7.0). For the PSFS, participants identified 3 mobility-related areas where they had difficulty and rated them at baseline, 10 to 14 days later (before starting intervention), and immediately after intervention. Test-retest reliability and response stability of the PSFS were calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 2,1 ) and minimal detectable change (MDC 95 ), respectively. Concurrent validity of the PSFS was determined with the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12) and the Timed 25-Foot Walk Test (T25FW). PSFS responsiveness was determined using Cohen's d , and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated based on patient-reported improvements on a Global Rating of Change (GRoC) scale.

RESULTS

The PSFS total score demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC 2,1 = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.84) and the MDC was 2.1 points. At baseline, the PSFS was fairly and significantly correlated with the MSWS-12 ( r = -0.46, P = 0.008) but not with the T25FW. Changes in the PSFS were moderately and significantly correlated with the GRoC scale (ρ = 0.63, P < 0.001), but not with MSWS-12 or T25FW changes. The PSFS was responsive ( d = 1.7), and the MCID was 2.5 points or more to identify patient-perceived improvements based on the GRoC scale (sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.76).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the use of the PSFS as an outcome measure in people with MS to assess mobility-related goals.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A423 ).