The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis

Brain

Volumn 129, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 2648-2659

  De Groot, Vincent ^a   Beckerman, H ^a   Uitdehaag, B M J ^a   De Vet, H C W ^a   Lankhorst, G J ^a   Polman, C H ^a   Bouter, L M ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Evaluative outcome measures; Minimally important change; Multiple sclerosis; Responsiveness; Smallest real change

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; DISABILITY; DISABILITY AND IMPACT PROFILE; EVALUATION; EXPANDED DISABILITY STATUS SCALE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GLOBAL RATING SCALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL OUTCOME STUDY 36 SHORT FORM; MENTAL HEALTH; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES PROFILE; RELIABILITY; SOCIAL INTERACTION;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AREA UNDER CURVE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PROGNOSIS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 33749470249     PISSN: 00068950     EISSN: 14602156     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awl223     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Antonucci G, Aprile T, Paolucci S. Rasch analysis of the Rivermead mobility index: a study using mobility measures of first-stroke inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1442-9.
2. Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Becher JG, Bezemer PD, Verbeek ALM. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 571-8.
3. Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, Keller RB, Lew RA, Fossel AH, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care 1998; 36: 491-502.
4. Beurskens AJHM, De Vet HCW, Kodie;ke AJA. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 1996; 65: 71-6.
5. Brunet DG, Hopman WM, Singer MA, Edgar CM, MacKenzie TA. Measurement of health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients. Can J Neurol Sci 1996; 23: 99-103.
6. Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, Peterman AH, Merkel DE. Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002a; 24: 547-61.
7. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K. Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 2002b; 11: 207-21.
8. Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Fischer JS, Goodman AD, Fedor RH, Jak AJ, et al. Use of the multiple sclerosis functional composite as an outcome measure in a phase 3 clinical trial. Arch Neurol 2001; 58: 961-7.
9. Cohen JA, Fischer JS, Bolibrush DM, Jak AJ, Kniker JE, Mertz LA, et al. Intrarater and interrater reliability of the multiple sclerosis functional composite outcome measure. Neurology 2000; 54: 802-6.
10. Cohen L, Pouwer F, Pfennings LE, Lankhorst GJ, Van der Ploeg HM, Polman CH, et al. Factor structure of the disability and impact profile in patients with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 141-50.
11. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead motor assessment. Int Disabil Stud 1991; 13: 50-4.
12. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 395-407.
13. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA, Cookfair DL, Fischer JS, Petkau J, et al. Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain 1999; 122: 871-82.
14. De Vet HCW, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ. Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17: 479-87.
15. Fischer JS, Rudick RA, Cutter GR, Reingold SC. Themultiple sclerosis functional composite measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to multiple sclerosis clinical outcome assessment. National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Mult Scler 1999; 5: 244-50.
16. Forlander DA, Bohannon RW. Rivermead mobility index: a brief review of research to date. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 97-100.
17. Freeman JA, Hobart JC, Langdon DW, Thompson AJ. Clinical appropriateness: a key factor in outcome measure selection: the 36 item short form health survey in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 68: 150-6.
18. Goodkin DE, Cookfair D, Wende K, Bourdette D, Pullicino P, Scherokman B, et al. Inter- and intrarater scoring agreement using grades 1.0 to 3.5 of the Kurtzke expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group. Neurology 1992; 42: 859-63.
19. Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC, Hens MM. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990; 71: 870-5.
20. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 171-8.
21. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 900-8.
22. Hobart J, Freeman J, Thompson A. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000; 123: 1027-40.
23. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Riazi A, Thompson A. The Multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001a; 124: 962-73.
24. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, Langdon DW, McLellan DL, Greenwood RJ, et al. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology 2001b; 57: 639-44.
25. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: development of a patient-based measure of outcome. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: 1-60.
26. Hoogervorst EL, Kalkers NF, Van Winsen LML, Uitdehaag BMJ, Polman CH. Differential treatment effect on measures of neurologic exam, functional impairment and patient self-report in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2001a; 7: 335-9.
27. Hoogervorst EL, Van Winsen LM, Eikelenboom MJ, Kalkers NF, Uitdehaag BM, Polman CH. Comparisons of patient self-report, neurologic examination, and functional impairment in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2001b; 56: 934-7.
28. Hoogervorst EL, Zwemmer JN, Jelles B, Polman CH, Uitdehaag BMJ. Multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29): relation to established measures of impairment and disability. Mult Scler 2004; 10: 569-74.
29. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Mao HF. Validity and responsiveness of the rivermead mobility index in stroke patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000; 32: 140-2.
30. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 459-68.
31. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH.Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-15.
32. Jonsson A, Dock J, Ravnborg MH. Quality of life as a measure of rehabilitation outcome in patients with multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 1996; 93: 229-35.
33. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81-7.
34. Kalkers NF, De Groot V, Lazeron RH, Killestein J, Ader HJ, Barkhof F, et al. multiple sclerosis functional composite: relation to disease phenotype and disability strata. Neurology 2000; 54: 1233-9.
35. Kalkers NF, Bergers E, Castelijns JA, Van Walderveen MA, Bot JC, Ader HJ, et al. Optimizing the association between disability and biological markers in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2001; 57: 1253-8.
36. Kaufman M, Moyer D, Norton J. The significant change for the timed 25-foot walk in the multiple sclerosis functional composite. Mult Scler 2000; 6: 286-90.
37. Kidd D, Howard RS, Losseff NA, Thompson AJ. The benefit of inpatient neurorehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 1995; 9: 198-203.
38. Koziol JA, Lucero A, Sipe JC, Romine JS, Beutler E. Responsiveness of the Scripps neurologic rating scale during a multiple sclerosis clinical trial. Can J Neurol Sci 1999; 26: 283-9.
39. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444-52.
40. Laman H, Lankhorst GJ. Subjective weighting of disability: an approach to quality of life assessment in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 1994; 16: 198-204.
41. Lankhorst GJ, Jelles F, Smits RCF, Polman CH, Kuik DJ, Pfennings LE, et al. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: the disability and impact profile (DIP). J Neurol 1996; 243: 469-74.
42. Liang MH. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol 1995; 22: 1191-2.
43. Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 221-6.
44. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res 1981; 4: 483-92.
45. Mancuso CA, Peterson MG. Different methods to assess quality of life from multiple follow-ups in a longitudinal asthma study. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 45-54.
46. Marolf MV, Vaney C, Konig N, Schenk T, Prosiegel M. Evaluation of disability in multiple sclerosis patients: a comparative study of the functional independence measure, the extended Barthel index and the expanded disability status scale. Clin Rehabil 1996; 10: 309-13.
47. McGuigan C, Hutchinson M. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) is a reliable and sensitive measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75: 266-9.
48. Miller DM, Rudick RA, Cutter G, Baier M, Fischer JS. Clinical significance of the multiple sclerosis functional composite: relationship to patientreported quality of life. Arch Neurol 2000; 57: 1319-24.
49. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 869-79.
50. Noseworthy JH. Clinical scoring methods for multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1994; 36: S80-5.
51. Noseworthy JH, Vandervoort MK, Wong CJ, Ebers GC. Interrater variability with the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and functional systems (FS) in a multiple sclerosis clinical trial. The Canadian Cooperation Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Neurology 1990; 40: 971-5.
52. Ostelo RW, De Vet HC. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2005; 19: 593-607.
53. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1226-32.
54. Patzold T, Schwengelbeck M, Ossege LM, Malin JP, Sindern E. Changes of the multiple sclerosis functional composite and EDSS during and after treatment of relapses with methylprednisolone in patients with multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 2002; 105: 164-8.
55. Pfennings LE, Van der Ploeg HM, Cohen L, et al. A health-related quality of life questionnaire for multiple sclerosis patients. Acta Neurol Scand 1999a; 100: 148-55.
56. Pfennings LE, Van der Ploeg HM, Cohen L, Polman CH. A comparison of responsiveness indices in multiple sclerosis patients. Qual Life Res 1999b; 8: 481-9.
57. Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 1983; 13: 227-31.
58. Riazi A, Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. Evidencebased measurement in multiple sclerosis: the psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions of three quality of life rating scales. Mult Scler 2003; 9: 411-9.
59. Rudick R, Antel J, Confavreux C, Cutter G, Ellison G, Fischer J, et al. Clinical outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1996; 40: 469-79.
60. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 1008-18.
61. Schunemann HJ, Griffith L, Jaeschke R, Goldstein R, Stubbing D, Guyatt GH. Evaluation of the minimal important difference for the feeling thermometer and the St. George's respiratory questionnaire in patients with chronic airflow obstruction. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 1170-6.
62. Schwid SR, Goodman AD, Apatoff BR, Coyle PK, Jacobs LD, Krupp LB, et al. Are quantitative functional measures more sensitive to worsening multiple sclerosis than traditional measures? Neurology 2000; 55: 1901-3.
63. Schwid SR, Goodman AD, McDermott MP, Bever CF, Cook SD. Quantitative functional measures in multiple sclerosis: what is a reliable change? Neurology 2002; 58: 1294-6.
64. Sharrack B, Hughes RA. The Guy's neurological disability scale (GNDS): a new disability measure for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 1999; 5: 223-33.
65. Solari A, Radice D, Manneschi L, Motti L, Montanari E. The multiple sclerosis functional composite: different practice effects in the three test components. J Neurol Sci 2005; 228: 71-4.
66. Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 1996; 76: 1109-23.
67. Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 1369-78.
68. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 349-62.
69. Uitdehaag BMJ, Ader HJ, Roosma TJ, De Groot V, Kalkers NF, Polman CH. Multiple sclerosis functional composite: impact of reference population and interpretation of changes. Mult Scler 2002; 8: 366-71.
70. Van Bennekom CAM, Jelles F, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The rehabilitation activities profile: a validation study of its use as a disability index with stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995; 76: 501-7.
71. Van Bennekom CAM, Jelles F, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. Responsiveness of the rehabilitation activities profile and the Barthel Index. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 39-44.
72. Van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the action research arm test and the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33: 110-3.
73. Van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the functional independence measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 66: 480-4.
74. Van der Windt DA, Van der Heijden GJ, De Winter AF, Koes BW, Devillé W, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the shoulder disability questionnaire. Ann Rheum Dis 1998; 57: 82-7.
75. Vaney C, Vaney S, Wade DT. SaGAS, the short and graphic ability score: an alternative scoring method for the motor components of the multiple sclerosis functional composite. Mult Scler 2004; 10: 231-42.
76. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Harooni R, Myers LW, Ellison GW. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 187-206.
77. Whitaker JN, Mcfarland HF, Rudge P, Reingold SC. Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a critical analysis. Mult Scler 1995; 1: 37-47.
78. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 861-73.
79. Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986; 42: 121-30.