Examining the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures for individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A model using the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score

Journal of Rheumatology

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 395-404

  Mills, Kathryn A G ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Naylor, Justine M ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Eyles, Jillian P ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Roos, Ewa M ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Hunter, David J ^a,b,c,d,e,f  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b LIVERPOOL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^d ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Knee osteoarthritis; Patient outcome assessment; Quality indicators

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE SEVERITY; HUMAN; KNEE INJURY AND OSTEOARTHRITIS OUTCOME SCORE; KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS; KNEE PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RECREATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SELF REPORT; SPORT; WALKING; DISABILITY; FEMALE; KNEE; KNEE REPLACEMENT; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84969375507     PISSN: 0315162X     EISSN: 14992752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.150398     Document Type: Article

References (34)

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;14:109-14.
2. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:524-34.
3. Tubach F, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. The variability in minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state values did not have an impact on treatment effect estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:725-8.
4. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
5. Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary-goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res 2005;40:593-7.
6. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11:171-84.
7. 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.
8. Ortqvist M, Iversen MD, Janarv PM, Broström EW, Roos EM. Psychometric properties of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Children (KOOS-Child) in children with knee disorders. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:1437-46.
9. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1998;8:439-48.
10. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:17.
11. Ornetti P, Parratte S, Gossec L, Tavernier C, Argenson JN, Roos EM, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in knee osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008;16:423-8.
12. Naylor JM, Hayen A, Davidson E, Hackett D, Harris IA, Kamalasena G, et al. Minimal detectable change for mobility and patient-reported tools in people with osteoarthritis awaiting arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014;15:235.
13. Jordan K, Clarke AM, Symmons DP, Fleming D, Porcheret M, Kadam UT, et al. Measuring disease prevalence: a comparison of musculoskeletal disease using four general practice consultation databases. Br J Gen Pract 2007;57:7-14.
14. Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH. The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013;22:1933-9.
15. Escobar A, Riddle DL. Concordance between important change and acceptable symptom state following knee arthroplasty: the role of baseline scores. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014;22:1107-10.
16. 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.
17. Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:28-36.
18. Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, et al. Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:374-9.
19. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011;12:77.
20. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950;3:32-5.
21. de Vet HC, Terluin B, Knol DL, Roorda LD, Mokkink LB, Ostelo RW, et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied minimally important change values. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:37-45.
22. Aletaha D, Funovits J, Ward MM, Smolen JS, Kvien TK. Perception of improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis varies with disease activity levels at baseline. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:313-20.
23. Aletaha D, Smolen J, Ward MM. Measuring function in rheumatoid arthritis: identifying reversible and irreversible components. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:2784-92.
24. Redelmeier DA, Lorig K. Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements: an illustration in rheumatology. Arch Int Med 1993;153:1337-42.
25. Roos EM. KOOS Scoring 2012. [Internet. Accessed November 26, 2015.] Available from: www.koos.nu/KOOSscoring2012.pdf
26. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Spor Exerc 2009;41:3-13.
27. Hopkins WG. A new view of statistics. [Internet. Accessed November 26, 2015.] Available from: www.sportsci.org/resource/stats
28. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007;7:541-6.
29. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28:406-12.
30. Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1215-9.
31. Fayers PM, Hays RD. Don't middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Qual Life Res 2013;23:1-4.
32. Rouquette A, Blanchin M, Sébille V, Guillemin F, Côté SM, Falissard B, et al. The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:433-40.
33. Schwartz CE, Andresen EM, Nosek MA, Krahn GL; RRTC Expert Panel on Health Status Measurement. Response shift theory: important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:529-36.
34. McPhail S, Haines T. Response shift, recall bias and their effect on measuring change in health-related quality of life amongst older hospital patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:65.