Validation of the minimal clinically important difference for modified activities assessment scale

被引：3

作者：

Neela, Niharika ^{[1
,2
]}

Olavarria, Oscar A. ^{[1
,2
]}

Rondon, Alexis P. ^{[1
,2
]}

Bernardi, Karla ^{[1
,2
]}

Shah, Puja ^{[1
]}

Dhanani, Naila ^{[1
,2
]}

Lyons, Nicole ^{[1
]}

Matta, Eduardo J. ^{[3
]}

Hasapes, Joseph P. ^{[3
]}

Liang, Mike K. ^{[4
]}

机构：

[1] UTHealth, McGovern Med Sch, Dept Surg, Houston, TX USA

[2] UTHealth, McGovern Med Sch, Ctr Surg Trials & Evidence Based Practice, Houston, TX USA

[3] UTHealth, McGovern Med Sch, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Imaging, Houston, TX USA

[4] Univ Houston, HCA Healthcare Kingwood, Dept Surg, Kingwood, TX USA

来源：

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY | 2022年 / 223卷 / 04期

关键词：

Hernia; Patient-centered; QOL; MCID; Anchor-based; Distribution-based; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; ABDOMINAL-WALL HERNIAS; IMPLEMENTATION; DESIGN; REPAIR; SF-36; MESH;

D O I：

10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.07.042

中图分类号：

R61 [外科手术学];

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in patientderived scores that is clinically important. We sought to validate the MCID of the modified activities assessment scale (mAAS). Methods: Patients were surveyed prior to undergoing abdomen/pelvis CT scans and resurveyed one year later. Before resurvey, patients were asked if they had no change, worsening, or improvement in AWQOL. The anchor-based MCID was calculated by taking a weighted mean of the difference between control (no change) and study (worsening/improved) groups. Distribution-based approach was calculated by one-half of the standard deviation in the QOL change. Results: 52.8% of 181 patients self-reported no change, 39.2% reported improvement, and 8.3% reported worsening AW-QOL. The anchor-based approach MCID was 4. The distribution-based MCID was 16. Conclusion: Our study results validate prior work demonstrating similar ranges of the mAAS MCID. We recommend adopting an MCID of 5 and 15 for AW-QOL with mAAS. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：770 / 773

页数：4

共 50 条

[1] Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale
Johnson, Miriam J.
Currow, David C.
[J]. CANCER, 2016, 122 (01) : 158 - 159
[2] Reply to Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale
Hui, David
Bruera, Eduardo
[J]. CANCER, 2016, 122 (01) : 159 - 160
[3] Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of Modified Ashworth Scale in patients with stroke
Chen, Chia-Ling
Chen, Chung-Yao
Chen, Hsieh-Ching
Wu, Ching-Yi
Lin, Keh-Chung
Hsieh, Yu-Wei
Shen, I-Hsuan
[J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2019, 55 (06) : 754 - 760
[4] The Wisconsin gait scale - The minimal clinically important difference
Guzik, Agnieszka
Druzbickia, Mariusz
Wolan-Nieroda, Andzelina
Przysada, Grzegorz
Kwolek, Andrzej
[J]. GAIT & POSTURE, 2019, 68 : 453 - 457
[5] Minimal clinically important difference of the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale in Parkinson's disease
Kluger, Benzi M.
Garimella, Sanjana
Garvan, Cynthia
[J]. PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS, 2017, 43 : 101 - 104
[6] THE MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE OF THE COPD ASSESSMENT TEST
Kon, S. S. C.
Canavan, J. L.
Clark, A. L.
Jones, S. E.
Nolan, C. M.
Polkey, M. I.
Man, W. D. C.
[J]. THORAX, 2013, 68 : A89 - A90
[7] Minimal Clinically Important Difference
Gatchel, Robert J.
Lurie, Jon D.
Mayer, Tom G.
[J]. SPINE, 2010, 35 (19) : 1739 - 1743
[8] An Updated Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the QoR-15 Scale
Myles, Paul S.
Myles, Daniel B.
[J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2021, 135 (05) : 934 - 935
[9] Minimal clinically important difference: The basics
Salas Apaza, Julieta Aldana
Ariel Franco, Juan Victor
Meza, Nicolas
Madrid, Eva
Loezar, Cristobal
Garegnani, Luis
[J]. MEDWAVE, 2021, 21 (03):
[10] An Application of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference Test for the Diabetes Distress Scale
Banks, J.
Amspoker, A. B.
Woodard, L.
Naik, A. D.
[J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2023, 71 : S244 - S244

← 1 2 3 4 5 →