Minimal (clinically) important differences for the Fatigue Assessment Scale in sarcoidosis

被引:99
|
作者
de Kleijn, Willemien P. E. [1 ,2 ]
De Vries, Jolanda [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Wijnen, Petal A. H. M. [2 ,4 ]
Drent, Marjolein [2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Tilburg Univ, Dept Med Psychol, Ctr Res Psychol Somat Dis CoRPS, NL-5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands
[2] Maastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Ild Care Team, Maastricht, Netherlands
[3] St Elizabeth Hosp, Dept Med Psychol, Tilburg, Netherlands
[4] Maastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Clin Chem, Maastricht, Netherlands
[5] Maastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Resp Med, Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
Sarcoidosis; Minimal clinically important difference; Fatigue; Fatigue Assessment Scale; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; HEALTH-STATUS; INTRAINDIVIDUAL CHANGES; MEANINGFUL CHANGE; RESPONSIVENESS; FIBROSIS; ANCHOR; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.rmed.2011.05.004
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: The usefulness of any questionnaire in clinical management and research trials depends on its ability to indicate a likelihood of treatment success during follow-up. The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) reflects a clinically relevant change score. The aim of this study was to estimate the MCID for the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) in patients with sarcoidosis. Methods: Outpatients (n = 321) of the ild care team of the Department of Respiratory Medicine of the Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands, participated in this prospective follow-up study. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID. Based on the anchor Physical Quality of Life, a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) was obtained. The distribution-based methods consisted of the Effect Size and Standard Error Measurement (SEM). Results: The anchor-based MCID found with ROC was 3.5. The distribution-based methods showed that the corresponding change scores in the FAS for a small effect was 4.2. The SEM criterion was 3.6 points change in the FAS. Conclusions: Based on the anchor-based and distribution-based methods, the MCID is a 4-point difference on the FAS. This MCID can be used in the follow-up of fatigue (FAS) in clinical trials and in the management of individual sarcoidosis cases. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1388 / 1395
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales
    Cella, D
    Eton, DT
    Lai, JS
    Peterman, AH
    Merkel, DE
    JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2002, 24 (06) : 547 - 561
  • [32] Minimal Detectable Change and Clinically Important Difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in Stroke Patients
    Lin, Keh-chung
    Fu, Tiffany
    Wu, Ching-yi
    Wang, Yen-ho
    Liu, Jung-sen
    Hsieh, Ching-ju
    Lin, Shih-fan
    NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR, 2010, 24 (05) : 486 - 492
  • [33] Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the functional assessment of cancer therapy: Cognitive function (FACT-Cog) in breast cancer patients
    Cheung, Yin Ting
    Foo, Yu Lee
    Shwe, Maung
    Tan, Yee Pin
    Fan, Gilbert
    Yong, Wei Sean
    Madhukumar, Preetha
    Ooi, Wei Seong
    Chay, Wen Yee
    Dent, Rebecca A.
    Ang, Soo Fan
    Lo, Soo Kien
    Yap, Yoon Sim
    Ng, Raymond
    Chan, Alexandre
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (07) : 811 - 820
  • [34] Determining the minimal clinically important differences in activity, fatigue, and sleep quality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
    Wells, George
    Li, Tracy
    Maxwell, Lara
    MacLean, Ross
    Tugwell, Peter
    JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2007, 34 (02) : 280 - 289
  • [35] Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures-a systematic review
    Nordin, Asa
    Taft, Charles
    Lundgren-Nilsson, Asa
    Dencker, Anna
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2016, 16
  • [36] Linking the Tinnitus Questionnaire and the subjective Clinical Global Impression: Which differences are clinically important?
    Adamchic, Ilya
    Tass, Peter Alexander
    Langguth, Berthold
    Hauptmann, Christian
    Koller, Michael
    Schecklmann, Martin
    Zeman, Florian
    Landgrebe, Michael
    HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2012, 10
  • [37] Determining Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Japanese Cedar/Cypress Pollinosis Patients
    Higaki, Takaya
    Okano, Mitsuhiro
    Kariya, Shin
    Fujiwara, Tazuko
    Haruna, Takenori
    Hirai, Haruka
    Murai, Aya
    Gotoh, Minoru
    Okubo, Kimihiro
    Yonekura, Shuji
    Okamoto, Yoshitaka
    Nishizaki, Kazunori
    ALLERGOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 62 (04) : 487 - 493
  • [38] Minimal Clinically Important Differences of 3 Patient-Rated Outcomes Instruments
    Sorensen, Amelia A.
    Howard, Daniel
    Tan, Wen Hui
    Ketchersid, Jeffrey
    Calfee, Ryan P.
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2013, 38A (04): : 641 - 649
  • [39] Estimating Minimal Clinically Important Differences for Knee Range of Motion after Stroke
    Guzik, Agnieszka
    Druzbicki, Mariusz
    Wolan-Nieroda, Andzelina
    Turolla, Andrea
    Kiper, Pawel
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (10) : 1 - 14
  • [40] An updated approach to determine minimal clinically important differences in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
    Kang, Mohleen
    Veeraraghavan, Srihari
    Martin, Greg S.
    Kempker, Jordan A.
    ERJ OPEN RESEARCH, 2021, 7 (04)