The minimally important difference in clinical practice for patient-centered outcomes including health assessment questionnaire, fatigue, pain, sleep, global visual analog scale, and SF-36 in scleroderma

Journal of Rheumatology

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 591-598

  Sekhon, Suneet ^a   Pope, J ^c   Baron, M ^c   Hudson, M ^c   Mathieu, J P ^c   Ligier, S ^c   Markland, J ^c   Robinson, D ^c   Jones, N ^c   Khalidi, N ^c   Kaminska, E ^c   Docherty, P ^c   Leclercq, S ^c   Abu Hakima, M ^c   Masetto, A ^c   Douglas Smith, C ^c   Sutton, E ^c   Fritzler, M ^d  

^a WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c Advanced Diagnostics Laboratory ^*

^d Advanced Diagnostics Laboratory   (Canada)

Author keywords

Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Minimal Important Difference; Patient Reported Outcomes; Scleroderma; Systemic Sclerosis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DISEASE COURSE; FATIGUE; FEMALE; HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCLERODERMA; SHORT FORM 36; SLEEP; SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 77949704261     PISSN: 0315162X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.090375     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Silver RM. Clinical aspects of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Ann Rheum Dis 1991;50:854-61.
2. Denton CP, Black CM, Korn JH, de Crombrugghe B. Systemic sclerosis: current pathogenetic concepts and future prospects for targeted therapy. Lancet 1996;347:1453-8.
3. Clements PJ. Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) and related disorders: Clinical aspects. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2000;14:1-16.
4. LeRoy EC, Black CM, Fleischmajer R, Jablonska S, Krief T, Medsger TA Jr, et al. Scleroderma (systemic sclerosis): Classification, subsets and pathogenesis. J Rheumatol 1988;15:202-5.
5. Khanna D. Health-related quality of life: a primer with a focus on scleroderma. Scleroderma Care Res 2006;3:3-13.
6. Merkel PA, Herlyn K, Martin RW, Anderson JJ, Mayes MD, Bell P, et al. Measuring disease activity and functional status in patients with scleroderma and Raynaud's phenomenon. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:2410-20.
7. Poole JL, Williams CA, Bloch DA, Hollak B, Spitz P. Concurrent validity of the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index in scleroderma. Arthritis Care Res 1995;8:189-93.
8. Steen VD, Medsger TA Jr. The value of the Health Assessment Questionnaire and special patient-generated scales to demonstrate change in systemic sclerosis patients over time. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1984-91.
9. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:137-45.
10. Ware JE Jr, Kosinki M, Keller S. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user's manual. Boston: New England Medical Center Health Institute; 1994.
11. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.
12. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31:247-63.
13. Khanna D, Furst DE, Wong WK, Tsevat J, Clements PJ, Park GS, et al. Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis. Qual Life Res 2007;16:1083-92.
14. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
15. Hays RD, Farivar S, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD 2005;2:63-7.
16. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.
17. Khanna D, Tsevat J. Health-related quality of life - an introduction. Am J Manag Care 2007;13 Suppl 9:S218-23.
18. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:900-8.
19. Yost KJ, Sorensen MV, Hahn EA, Glendenning GA, Gnanasakthy A, Cella D. Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument. Value Health 2005;8:117-27.
20. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1523-32.
21. Khanna D, Furst DE, Hays RD, Park GS, Wong WK, Seibold JR, et al. Minimally important difference in diffuse systemic sclerosis: results from the D-penicillamine study. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:1325-9.
22. Subcommittee for Scleroderma Criteria of the American Rheumatism Association Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee. Preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:581-90.
23. Winterbauer RH. Multiple telangiectasia, Raynaud's phenomenon, sclerodactyly, and subcutaneous calcinosis: A syndrome mimicking hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 1964;114:361-83.
24. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:29-33.
25. Thombs B, Hudson M, Taillefer S, Baron M, Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Prevalence and clinical correlates of symptoms of depression in patients with systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:504-9.
26. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
27. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research: how meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 2000;18:419-23.
28. Pope J, Khanna D, Norrie D, Ouimet JM. The minimally important difference for the Health Assessment Questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis is smaller than in randomized controlled trials. J Rheumatol 2009;36:254-9.
29. Khanna D, Pope J, Khanna PP, Maloney M, Samadi N, Norrie D, et al. The minimally important difference for the fatigue visual analog scale in patients with rheumatoid arthritis followed in an academic clinical practice. J Rheumatol 2008;35:2339-43.
30. Wheaton L, Pope J. The minimally important difference for patient centred outcomes in ankylosing spondylitis, including pain, fatigue, sleep and the Health Assessment Questionnaire [abstract]. J Rheumatol 2009;36:2579.
31. Colangelo K, Pope J, Peschken C. The minimally important difference for patient reported outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus including the HAQ-DI, pain, fatigue, and SF-36. J Rheumatol 2009;36:2231-7.
32. 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;61:102-9.
33. Schwartz N, Sudman S. Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1994.
34. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:1-8.