nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.07.2020 | Original Article

The responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation questionnaire

verfasst von: Rebecca G. Rogers, Carla M. Bann, Matthew D. Barber, Pamela Fairchild, Emily S. Lukacz, Lily Arya, Alayne D. Markland, Nazema Y. Siddiqui, Vivian W. Sung

Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal | Ausgabe 12/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We describe the responsiveness and minimally important difference (MID) of the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation (ABLE) questionnaire.

Methods

Women with bowel leakage completed ABLE, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, Colo-Rectal Anal Distress Inventory, and Vaizey questionnaires pretreatment and again at 24 weeks post-treatment. Change scores were correlated between questionnaires. Student’s t tests compared ABLE change scores for improved versus not improved based on other measures. The MID was determined by anchor- and distribution-based approaches.

Results

In 266 women, the mean age was 63.75 (SD = 11.14) and 79% were white. Mean baseline ABLE scores were 2.32 ± 0.56 (possible range 1–5) with a reduction of 0.62 (SD = 0.79) by 24 weeks. ABLE change scores correlated with related measures change scores (r = 0.24 to 0.53) and differed between women who improved and did not improve (all p < 0.001). Standardized response means for participants who improved were large ranging from −0.89 to −1.12. Distribution-based methods suggest a MID of −0.19 based on the criterion of one SEM and −0.28 based on half a standard deviation. Anchor-based MIDs ranged from −0.10 to −0.45. We recommend a MID of −0.20.

Conclusions

The ABLE questionnaire is responsive to change, with a suggested MID of −0.20.

Ng KS, Sivakumaran Y, Nassar N, Gladman MA. Fecal incontinence: community prevalence and associated factors—a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(12):1194–209.CrossRef

Meyer I, Richter HE. Impact of fecal incontinence and its treatment on quality of life in women. Womens Health (Lond, Engl). 2015;11(2):225–38.CrossRef

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.CrossRef

Rogers RG, Sung VW, Lukacz ES, Fairchild P, Arya LA, Barber MD et al for the PFDN Network. Accidental bowel leakage evaluation (ABLE): a new patient-centered validated measure of accidental bowel leakage symptoms in women. Dis Colon Rec 2019;63(5):668–77.

Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395–407.CrossRef

Jelovsek EJ, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, Barber MD, Newman DK, Rogers RG, et al. Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(9):698–710.CrossRef

Jelovsek EJ, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, et al. Controlling anal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide (CAPABLe) trial: design and methods. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;44:164–74.CrossRef

Sung V, Rogers RG, Bann CM, Arya L, Barber MD, Lowder J, et al. Symptom outcomes important to women with anal incontinence: a conceptual framework. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1023–30.CrossRef

Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44(1):77–80.CrossRef

10.

Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20) and PFIQ-7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.CrossRef

11.

Wei JT, Dunn R, Nygaard I, Burgio K, Lukacz ES, Markland A. Development and validation of a quantitative measure of adaptive behaviors in women with pelvic floor disorders. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(4):232–7.PubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Jelovsek JE, Chen Z, Markland AD, Brubaker L, Dyer KY, Meikle S, et al. Minimum important differences for scales assessing symptoms severity and quality of life in participants with fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(6):342–8.CrossRef

13.

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.CrossRef

14.

Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–92.PubMed

15.

Rejas J, Pardo A, Ruiz MA. Standard error of measurement as a valid alternative to minimally important difference for evaluating the magnitude of changes in patient-reported outcomes measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):350–6.CrossRef

16.

McLeod LD, Coon CD, Martin SA, Fehnel SE, Hays RD. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):163–9.CrossRef

Titel: The responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation questionnaire
verfasst von: Rebecca G. Rogers
Carla M. Bann
Matthew D. Barber
Pamela Fairchild
Emily S. Lukacz
Lily Arya
Alayne D. Markland
Nazema Y. Siddiqui
Vivian W. Sung
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2020
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal / Ausgabe 12/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04367-5

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

The responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation questionnaire