Qualiveen, a urinary-disorder specific instrument: 0.5 corresponds to the minimal important difference

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 505-510

  Bonniaud, Véronique ^a,b   Bryant, Dianne ^b,c   Parratte, Bernard ^a   Guyatt, Gordon ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF BESANÇON   (France)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Interpretation; Multiple sclerosis; Neurogenic bladder; Quality of life; Qualiveen; Transition ratings

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEAR; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALIVEEN; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; URINARY TRACT DISEASE; VALIDITY;

ADULT; AGED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; URINARY BLADDER, NEUROGENIC;

EID: 41249099987     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Schunemann H.J., Akl E.A., and Guyatt G.H. Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician's perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4 (2006) 62-65
2. Guyatt G.H., Montori V., Devereaux P.J., Schünemann H., and Bhandari M. Patients at the center: in our practice, and in our use of language. [Editorial]. ACP J Club 140 (2004) A11
3. Federal Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Available at (2006). http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf (Accessed February 2006)
4. Jaeschke R., Singer J., and Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10 (1989) 407-415
5. Wyrwich K.W., Bullinger M., Aaronson N., Hays R.D., Patrick D.L., and Symonds T. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 14 (2005) 285-295
6. Schmitt J.S., and Di Fabio R.P. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 1008-1018
7. Marquis P., Chassany O., and Abetz L. A comprehensive strategy for the interpretation of quality-of-life data based on existing methods. Value Health 7 (2004) 93-104
8. Brozek J.L., Guyatt G.H., and Schunemann H.J. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4 (2006) 69-79
9. Guyatt G.H., Osoba D., Wu A.W., Wyrwich K.W., and Norman G.R. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77 (2002) 371-383
10. Bonniaud V., Parratte B., Amarenco G., Jackowski D., Didier J.P., and Guyatt G. Measuring quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients with urinary disorders using the Qualiveen questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85 (2004) 1317-1323
11. Bonniaud V., Jackowski D., Parratte B., Paulseth R., Grad S., Margetts P., et al. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients with urinary disorders: discriminative validation of the English version of Qualiveen. Qual life Res 14 (2005) 425-431
12. Bonniaud V., Bryant D., Parratte B., Gallien P., and Guyatt G. Validation of a urinary-disorder specific instrument for use in clinical trials in multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87 (2006) 1661-1663
13. Guyatt G.H., Norman G.R., Juniper E.F., and Griffith L.E. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 55 (2002) 900-908
14. Poser C.M., Paty D.W., Scheinberg L., McDonald W.I., Davis F.A., Ebers G.C., et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 13 (1983) 227-231
15. Cook D.J., Guyatt G.H., Juniper E., Griffith L., McIlroy W., Willan A., et al. Interviewer versus self-administered questionnaires in developing a disease-specific, health-related quality of life instrument for asthma. J Clin Epidemiol 46 (1993) 529-534
16. Juniper E.F., Guyatt G.H., Willan A., and Griffith L.E. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 47 (1994) 81-87
17. Kurtzke J.F. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33 (1983) 1444-1452
18. Norman G.R., Stratford P., and Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50 (1997) 869-879
19. Schmitt J., and Di Fabio R.P. The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86 (2005) 2270-2276