Minimum important differences for scales assessing symptom severity and quality of life in patients with fecal incontinence

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 342-348

  Jelovsek, John Eric ^a   Chen, Zhen ^b   Markland, Alayne D ^c   Brubaker, Linda ^d   Dyer, Keisha Y ^e   Meikle, Susie ^f   Rahn, David D ^g   Siddiqui, Nazeema Y ^h   Tuteja, Ashok ⁱ   Barber, Matthew D ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^d LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^h DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

Fecal incontinence; Health related quality of life; Minimum important difference; Patient reported outcomes; Questionnaire; Responsiveness

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ADULT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL ANAL DISTRESS INVENTORY; COLORECTAL ANAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE; DISEASE SEVERITY; EFFECT SIZE; FECAL INCONTINENCE SEVERITY INDEX; FECES INCONTINENCE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; MIDDLE AGED; MODIFIED MANCHESTER HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PELVIC FLOOR IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE; PELVIC FLOOR MUSCLE TRAINING; PERCEPTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TRIANGULATION; ANXIETY; CLINICAL TRIAL; ETIOLOGY; FECAL INCONTINENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

ANXIETY; FECAL INCONTINENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84923629938     PISSN: 21518378     EISSN: 21544212     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000078     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al. Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43(1):9-16.
2. Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, et al. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 1999;44(1):77-80.
3. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al. Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: The fecal incontinence severity index. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42(12):1525-1532.
4. Kwon S, Visco AG, Fitzgerald MP, et al., Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (PFDN). Validity and reliability of the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire in assessing patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48(2):323-331.
5. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, et al. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185(6):1388-1395.
6. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56(5):395-407.
7. Barber MD, Walters MD, Cundiff GW, PESSRI Trial Group. Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194(5):1492-1498.
8. Wren PA, Janz NK, Brubaker L, et al. Reliability of health-related quality-of-life measures 1 year after surgical procedures for pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192(3):780-788.
9. Barber MD, Chen Z, Lukacz E, et al. Further validation of the short form versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol Urodyn 2011;30(4):541-546.
10. Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, et al. Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: The Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Continence Program in Women (CPW) Research Group. Qual Life Res 1994;3(5):291-306.
11. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, et al. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 2005;14(2):285-295.
12. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al., Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77(4):371-383.
13. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61(2):102-109.
14. 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):350-356.
15. Ott L. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press, 1977.
16. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
17. Jones M, Talley NJ. Minimum clinically important difference for the Nepean Dyspepsia Index, a validated quality of life scale for functional dyspepsia. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104(6):1483-1488.
18. Bols EM, Hendriks EJ, Deutekom M, et al. Inconclusive psychometric properties of the Vaizey score in fecally incontinent patients: A prospective cohort study. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29(3):370-377.
19. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40(2):171-178.
20. Yost KJ, Cella D, Chawla A, et al. Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- And anchor-based approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(12):1241-1251.
21. 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):582-592.
22. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, et al. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999;37(5):469-478.