Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the barthel index in stroke patients

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 233-238

  Hsieh, Yu Wei ^a   Wang, Chun Hou ^b   Wu, Shwu Chong ^c   Chen, Pau Chung ^c   Sheu, Ching Fan ^d   Hsieh, Ching Lin ^a,e  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b CHUNG SHAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^e NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Barthel Index; Minimal clinically important difference; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BARTHEL INDEX; CONTROLLED STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; STROKE; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 34247387055     PISSN: 15459683     EISSN: 15526844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1545968306294729     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Beaton DE, Boers M., Wells GA Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002 ; 14: 109-114.
2. Brealey S. Measuring patient health status in rheumatoid arthritis - what is a minimal clinically important difference? J Rheumatol. 2004 ; 31: 1026-1028.
3. 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: 81-87.
4. Kelleher CJ, Pleil AM, Reese PR, Burgess SM, Brodish PH How much is enough and who says so ? BJOG. 2004 ; 111: 605-612.
5. Osoba D., Rodrigues G., Myles J., Zee B., Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998 ; 16: 139-144.
6. Jaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt GH Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989 ; 10: 407-415.
7. Wright JG The minimal important difference: Who's to say what is important? J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 ; 49: 1221-1222.
8. Lydick E., Epstein RS Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993 ; 2: 221-226.
9. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 ; 56: 395-407.
10. Hagg O., Fritzell P., Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003 ; 12: 12-20 ; discussion 21.
11. Nunnally J., Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill ; 1994.
12. Kelly-Hayes M., Robertson JT, Broderick JP, et al. The American Heart Association stroke outcome classification. Stroke. 1998 ; 29: 1274-1280.
13. Collin C., Wade DT, Davies S., Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988 ; 10: 61-63.
14. Green J., Forster A., Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2001 ; 23: 670-676.
15. Hsueh IP, Lee MM, Hsieh CL Psychometric characteristics of the Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index in stroke patients. J Formos Med Assoc. 2001 ; 100: 526-532.
16. Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure, 5 item Barthel Index, and 10 item Barthel Index in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 ; 73: 188-190.
17. Wallace D., Duncan PW, Lai SM Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 ; 55: 922-928.
18. Wyrwich KW Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: Is there a connection? J Biopharm Stat. 2004 ; 14: 97-110.
19. Guyatt G., Walter S., Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987 ; 40: 171-178.
20. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965 ; 14: 61-65.
21. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR " Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 ; 12: 189-198.
22. Xu G., Meyer JS, Huang Y., Du F., Chowdhury M., Quach M. Adapting mini-mental state examination for dementia screening among illiterate or minimally educated elderly Chinese. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003 ; 18: 609-616.
23. Flansbjer UB, Holmback AM, Downham D., Lexell J. What change in isokinetic knee muscle strength can be detected in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke ? Clin Rehabil. 2005 ; 19: 514-522.
24. Flansbjer UB, Holmback AM, Downham D., Patten C., Lexell J. Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2005 ; 37: 75-82.
25. Stratford PW, Goldsmith CH Use of the standard error as a reliability index of interest: an applied example using elbow flexor strength data. Phys Ther. 1997 ; 77: 745-750.
26. Beckerman H., Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Becher JG, Bezemer PD, Verbeek AL Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res. 2001 ; 10: 571-578.
27. van der Esch M., Steultjens M., Ostelo RW, Harlaar J., Dekker J. Reproducibility of instrumented knee joint laxity measurement in healthy subjects. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 ; 45: 595-599.
28. van Bennekom CA, Jelles F., Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM Responsiveness of the rehabilitation activities profile and the Barthel Index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 ; 49: 39-44.
29. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavior Sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press ; 1988.
30. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 ; 56: 1137-1141.
31. 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: 1008-1018.
32. Loewen SC, Anderson BA Reliability of the Modified Motor Assessment Scale and the Barthel Index. Phys Ther. 1988 ; 68: 1077-1081.
33. Wolfe CD, Taub NA, Woodrow EJ, Burney PG Assessment of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients. Stroke. 1991 ; 22: 1242-1244.
34. Donner A., Eliasziw M. Sample size requirements for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1987 ; 6: 441-448.
35. Hopkins WG Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000 ; 30: 1-15.