The Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure in young children: responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference

被引:37
|
作者
Gaunt, D. M. [1 ]
Metcalfe, C. [1 ]
Ridd, M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Bristol Randomised Trials Collaborat, Sch Social & Community Med, Canynge Hall,39 Whatley Rd, Bristol BS8 2PS, Avon, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Ctr Acad Primary Care, Sch Social & Community Med, Bristol, Avon, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
atopic eczema; minimal clinically important difference; paediatrics; Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure; responsiveness; ATOPIC ECZEMA; OUTCOME MEASURES; SEVERITY; INSTRUMENTS; QUALITY; EASI; CARE; POEM;
D O I
10.1111/all.12942
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
BackgroundThe Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) has been recommended as the core patient-reported outcome measure for trials of eczema treatments. Using data from the Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment randomized feasibility study, we assess the responsiveness to change and determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the POEM in young children with eczema. MethodsResponsiveness to change by repeated administrations of the POEM was investigated in relation to change recalled using the Parent Global Assessment (PGA) measure. Five methods of determining the MCID of the POEM were employed; three anchor-based methods using PGA as the anchor: the within-patient score change, between-patient score change and sensitivity and specificity method, and two distribution-based methods: effect size estimate and the one half standard deviation of the baseline distribution of POEM scores. ResultsSuccessive POEM scores were found to be responsive to change in eczema severity. The MCID of the POEM change score, in relation to a slight improvement in eczema severity as recalled by parents on the PGA, estimated by the within-patient score change (4.27), the between-patient score change (2.89) and the sensitivity and specificity method (3.00) was similar to the one half standard deviation of the POEM baseline scores (2.94) and the effect size estimate (2.50). ConclusionsThe Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure as applied to young children is responsive to change, and the MCID is around 3. This study will encourage the use of POEM and aid in determining sample size for future randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema in young children.
引用
收藏
页码:1620 / 1625
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: Response
    Franceschini, Marco
    Boffa, Angelo
    Pignotti, Elettra
    Andriolo, Luca
    Zaffagnini, Stefano
    Filardo, Giuseppe
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2023, 51 (13): : NP52 - NP52
  • [32] Estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement Measure
    Hsieh, Yu-Wei
    Wang, Chun-Hou
    Sheu, Ching-Fan
    Hsueh, I-Ping
    Hsieh, Ching-Lin
    NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR, 2008, 22 (06) : 723 - 727
  • [33] The 4-metre gait speed in COPD: responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference
    Kon, Samantha S. C.
    Canavan, Jane L.
    Nolan, Claire M.
    Clark, Amy L.
    Jones, Sarah E.
    Cullinan, Paul
    Polkey, Michael I.
    Man, William D-C.
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2014, 43 (05) : 1298 - 1305
  • [34] Responsiveness of the COPD Assessment Test The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Does Matter Response
    Jones, Paul W.
    CHEST, 2012, 142 (01) : 268 - 269
  • [35] Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life Questionnaire
    Chernyshov, Pavel V.
    Marron, Servando E.
    Koumaki, Dimitra
    Pustisek, Nives
    Manolache, Liana
    Salavastru, Carmen
    Suru, Alina
    Sendrea, Adelina
    Svyatenko, Tetiana
    Statkevych, Olha
    Boffa, Michael J.
    Grech, Sara Borg
    Zemskov, Sergii
    Kuts, Volodymyr V.
    Lishchynskyi, Pavlo
    Chernyshov, Andrii V.
    Tomas-Aragones, Lucia
    DERMATOLOGY AND THERAPY, 2023, : 2879 - 2893
  • [36] Responsiveness and the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for HM-PRO in Patients with Hematological Malignancies
    Goswami, Pushpendra
    Oliva, Esther Natalie
    Ionova, Tatyana
    Salek, Sam
    BLOOD, 2018, 132
  • [37] Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of K-BILD and SGRQ-I
    Prior, Thomas Skovhus
    Hoyer, Nils
    Hilberg, Ole
    Shaker, Saher
    Davidsen, Jesper Romhild
    Bendstrup, Elisabeth
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2020, 56
  • [38] Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life Questionnaire
    Chernyshov, Pavel V.
    Marron, Servando E.
    Koumaki, Dimitra
    Pustisek, Nives
    Manolache, Liana
    Salavastru, Carmen
    Suru, Alina
    Sendrea, Adelina
    Svyatenko, Tetiana
    Statkevych, Olha
    Boffa, Michael J.
    Grech, Sara Borg
    Zemskov, Sergii
    Kuts, Volodymyr V.
    Lishchynskyi, Pavlo
    Chernyshov, Andrii V.
    Tomas-Aragones, Lucia
    DERMATOLOGY AND THERAPY, 2023, 13 (11) : 2879 - 2893
  • [39] Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for the EQ-5D in chronic rhinosinusitis
    Hoehle, Lloyd P.
    Phillips, Katie M.
    Speth, Marlene M.
    Caradonna, David S.
    Gray, Stacey T.
    Sedaghat, Ahmad R.
    RHINOLOGY, 2019, 57 (02) : 110 - 116
  • [40] Minimal clinically important difference of the first 1000 children assessed with the CMTPedS
    Cornett, Kayla
    Bray, Paula
    Menezes, Manoj
    Estilow, Timothy
    Eichinger, Katy
    Ramdharry, Gita
    Shy, Rosemary
    Moroni, Isabella
    Pareyson, Davide
    Finkel, Richard
    Yum, Sabrina
    Herrmann, David
    Muntoni, Francesco
    Reilly, Mary
    Shy, Michael
    Burns, Joshua
    JOURNAL OF THE PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, 2021, 26 (03) : 388 - 389