nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.01.2016

Estimating minimally important difference (MID) in PROMIS pediatric measures using the scale-judgment method

verfasst von: David Thissen, Yang Liu, Brooke Magnus, Hally Quinn, Debbie S. Gipson, Carlton Dampier, I-Chan Huang, Pamela S. Hinds, David T. Selewski, Bryce B. Reeve, Heather E. Gross, Darren A. DeWalt

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To assess minimally important differences (MIDs) for several pediatric self-report item banks from the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System^® (PROMIS^®).

Methods

We presented vignettes comprising sets of two completed PROMIS questionnaires and asked judges to declare whether the individual completing those questionnaires had an important change or not. We enrolled judges (including adolescents, parents, and clinicians) who responded to 24 vignettes (six for each domain of depression, pain interference, fatigue, and mobility). We used item response theory to model responses to the vignettes across different judges and estimated MID as the point at which 50 % of the judges would declare an important change.

Results

We enrolled 246 judges (78 adolescents, 85 parents, and 83 clinicians). The MID estimated with clinician data was about 2 points on the PROMIS T-score scale, and the MID estimated with adolescent and parent data was about 3 points on that same scale.

Conclusions

The MIDs enhance the value of PROMIS pediatric measures in clinical research studies to identify meaningful changes in health status over time.

Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383. doi:10.4065/77.4.371.PubMedCrossRef

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.PubMedCrossRef

Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.PubMedCrossRef

Wells, G., Li, T., Maxwell, L., MacLean, R., & Tugwell, P. (2007). Determining the minimal clinically important differences in activity, fatigue, and sleep quality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 34(2), 280–289.PubMed

Bellamy, N., Anastassiades, T. P., Buchanan, W. W., Davis, P., Lee, P., McCain, G. A., et al. (1991). Rheumatoid arthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials of antirheumatic drugs—Results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. Journal of Rheumatology, 18(12), 1908–1915.PubMed

Bellamy, N., Buchanan, W. W., Esdaile, J. M., Fam, A. G., Kean, W. F., Thompson, J. M., et al. (1991). Ankylosing spondylitis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials of antirheumatic drugs—Results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. Journal of Rheumatology, 18(11), 1716–1722.PubMed

Bellamy, N., Carette, S., Ford, P. M., Kean, W. F., le Riche, N. G., Lussier, A., et al. (1992). Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials–results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. Journal of Rheumatology, 19(3), 451–457.PubMed

Spiegel, B. M., Younossi, Z. M., Hays, R. D., Revicki, D., Robbins, S., & Kanwal, F. (2005). Impact of hepatitis C on health related quality of life: A systematic review and quantitative assessment. Hepatology, 41(4), 790–800. doi:10.1002/hep.20659.PubMedCrossRef

Wyrwich, K. W., Metz, S. M., Kroenke, K., Tierney, W. M., Babu, A. N., & Wolinsky, F. D. (2007). Triangulating patient and clinician perspectives on clinically important differences in health-related quality of life among patients with heart disease. Health Services Research, 42(6 Pt 1), 2257–2274. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00733.x.

10.

Rai, S. K., Yazdany, J., Fortin, P. R., & Avina-Zubieta, J. A. (2015). Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important differences in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Research & Therapy, 17, 143. doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0658-6.CrossRef

11.

van Walraven, C., Mahon, J. L., Moher, D., Bohm, C., & Laupacis, A. (1999). Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: Implications for sample-size calculation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(8), 717–723. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00050-5.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Todd, K. H., & Funk, J. P. (1996). The minimum clinically important difference in physician-assigned visual analog pain scores. Academic Emergency Medicine, 3(2), 142–146. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03402.x.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Dempster, H., Porepa, M., Young, N., & Feldman, B. M. (2001). The clinical meaning of functional outcome scores in children with juvenile arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 44(8), 1768–1774. doi:10.1002/1529-0131(200108)44:8<1768:AID-ART312>3.0.CO;2-Q.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Gong, G. W., Young, N. L., Dempster, H., Porepa, M., & Feldman, B. M. (2007). The Quality of My Life questionnaire: The minimal clinically important difference for pediatric rheumatology patients. Journal of Rheumatology, 34(3), 581–587.PubMed

15.

Kingston, N. M., Kahl, S. R., Sweeney, K. P., & Bay, L. (2001). Setting performance standards using the body of work method. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 219–248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

16.

Cella, D., Choi, S., Garcia, S., Cook, K. F., Rosenbloom, S., Lai, J. S., et al. (2014). Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0732-6.

17.

Cook, K. F., Victorson, D. E., Cella, D., Schalet, B. D., & Miller, D. (2015). Creating meaningful cut-scores for Neuro-QOL measures of fatigue, physical functioning and sleep disturbance using standard setting with patients and providers. Quality of Life Research, 24(3), 575–589. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0790-9.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Irwin, D. E., Stucky, B., Langer, M. M., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). An item response analysis of the pediatric PROMIS anxiety and depressive symptoms scales. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 19(4), 595–607. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9619-3.CrossRef

19.

Varni, J. W., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Dewitt, E. M., Irwin, D. E., Lai, J. S., et al. (2010). PROMIS Pediatric Pain Interference Scale: An item response theory analysis of the Pediatric Pain Item Bank. Journal of Pain, 11(11), 1109–1119. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2010.02.005.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Lai, J. S., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Varni, J. W., Dewitt, E. M., Irwin, D. E., et al. (2013). Development and psychometric properties of the PROMIS^® pediatric fatigue item banks. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation,. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0357-1.

21.

Dewitt, E. M., Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., Irwin, D. E., Langer, M., Varni, J. W., et al. (2011). Construction of the eight-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pediatric physical function scales: Built using item response theory. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(7), 794–804. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.012.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

22.

Qualtrics. (2013). Qualtrics research suite (version 37892). Provo, UT.

23.

Robinson-Cimpian, J. P. (2014). Inaccurate estimation of disparities due to mischievous responders: Several suggestions to assess conclusions. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 171–185. doi:10.3102/0013189x14534297.CrossRef

24.

Thissen, D. (1982). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation for the one-parameter logistic model. Psychometrika, 47(2), 175–186. doi:10.1007/bf02296273.CrossRef

25.

Yost, K. J., Eton, D. T., Garcia, S. F., & Cella, D. (2011). Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(5), 507–516. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.018.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

26.

Copay, A. G., Glassman, S. D., Subach, B. R., Berven, S., Schuler, T. C., & Carreon, L. Y. (2008). Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: A choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. The Spine Journal, 8(6), 968–974. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Copay, A. G. (2012). Commentary: The proliferation of minimum clinically important differences. The Spine Journal, 12(12), 1129–1131. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.022.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Demyttenaere, K., Desaiah, D., Petit, C., Croenlein, J., & Brecht, S. (2009). Patient-assessed versus physician-assessed disease severity and outcome in patients with nonspecific pain associated with major depressive disorder. Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 11(1), 8–15. doi:10.4088/PCC.08m00670.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Titel: Estimating minimally important difference (MID) in PROMIS pediatric measures using the scale-judgment method
verfasst von: David Thissen
Yang Liu
Brooke Magnus
Hally Quinn
Debbie S. Gipson
Carlton Dampier
I-Chan Huang
Pamela S. Hinds
David T. Selewski
Bryce B. Reeve
Heather E. Gross
Darren A. DeWalt
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2016
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1058-8

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Estimating minimally important difference (MID) in PROMIS pediatric measures using the scale-judgment method

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

How dead is dead? Qualitative findings from participants of combined traditional and lead-time time trade-off valuations

Impact of untreated dental caries and its clinical consequences on the oral health-related quality of life of schoolchildren aged 8–10 years

How does the EQ-5D perform when measuring quality of life in dementia against two other dementia-specific outcome measures?

Validation of the Italian version of the Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire for children

Item-level informant discrepancies across obese–overweight children and their parents on the PedsQL™ 4.0 instrument: an iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression

Pretreatment quality of life as a prognostic factor for early survival and functional outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer