Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain and the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) for patients with osteoarthritis at the base of thumb.
Hand
Minimal important difference
Osteoarthritis
Patient acceptable symptom state
Patient reported outcome measures
Treatment outcome
Wrist
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 04 2022
29 04 2022
Historique:
received:
07
10
2021
accepted:
06
04
2022
entrez:
29
4
2022
pubmed:
30
4
2022
medline:
4
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE) are patient-reported outcomes frequently used for evaluating pain and function of the wrist and hand. The aim of this study was to determine thresholds for minimal important difference (MID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for NRS pain and PRWHE instruments in patients with base of thumb osteoarthritis. Fifty-two patients with symptomatic base of thumb osteoarthritis wore a splint for six weeks before undergoing trapeziectomy. NRS pain (0 to 10) and PRWHE (0 to 100) were collected at the time of recruitment (baseline), after splint immobilization prior to surgery, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. Four anchor-based methods were used to determine MID for NRS pain and PRWHE: the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change (MDC), the mean change (MC) and the predictive modelling methods. Two approaches were used to determine PASS for NRS pain and PRWHE: the 75 The MID for NRS pain was 2.5 using the ROC curve method, 2.0 using the MDC method, 2.8 using the MC method, and 2.5 using the predictive modelling method. The corresponding MIDs for PRWHE were 22, 24, 10, and 20. The PASS values for NRS pain and PRWHE were 2.5 and 30 using the ROC curve method, and 2.0 and 22 using the 75th percentile method, respectively. The area under curve (AUC) analyses showed excellent discrimination for all measures. We found credible MID estimates for NRS and PRWHE (including its subscales), although the MID estimates varied depending on the method used. The estimates were 20-30% of the range of scores of the instruments. The cut-offs for MID and PASS showed good or excellent discrimination, lending support for their use in future studies. This clinimetrics study was approved by the Helsinki University ethical review board (HUS1525/2017).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE) are patient-reported outcomes frequently used for evaluating pain and function of the wrist and hand. The aim of this study was to determine thresholds for minimal important difference (MID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for NRS pain and PRWHE instruments in patients with base of thumb osteoarthritis.
METHODS
Fifty-two patients with symptomatic base of thumb osteoarthritis wore a splint for six weeks before undergoing trapeziectomy. NRS pain (0 to 10) and PRWHE (0 to 100) were collected at the time of recruitment (baseline), after splint immobilization prior to surgery, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. Four anchor-based methods were used to determine MID for NRS pain and PRWHE: the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change (MDC), the mean change (MC) and the predictive modelling methods. Two approaches were used to determine PASS for NRS pain and PRWHE: the 75
RESULTS
The MID for NRS pain was 2.5 using the ROC curve method, 2.0 using the MDC method, 2.8 using the MC method, and 2.5 using the predictive modelling method. The corresponding MIDs for PRWHE were 22, 24, 10, and 20. The PASS values for NRS pain and PRWHE were 2.5 and 30 using the ROC curve method, and 2.0 and 22 using the 75th percentile method, respectively. The area under curve (AUC) analyses showed excellent discrimination for all measures.
CONCLUSION
We found credible MID estimates for NRS and PRWHE (including its subscales), although the MID estimates varied depending on the method used. The estimates were 20-30% of the range of scores of the instruments. The cut-offs for MID and PASS showed good or excellent discrimination, lending support for their use in future studies.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This clinimetrics study was approved by the Helsinki University ethical review board (HUS1525/2017).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35488190
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01600-1
pii: 10.1186/s12874-022-01600-1
pmc: PMC9052459
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
127Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Feb;135(2):508-520
pubmed: 25626796
Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15
pubmed: 2691207
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Nov;64(11):1699-707
pubmed: 22674853
Hand Clin. 1987 Nov;3(4):455-71
pubmed: 3693416
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Jan;64(1):29-33
pubmed: 15208174
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2021 Jun;29(6):785-792
pubmed: 33744429
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011 May;41(5):319-27
pubmed: 21335930
Qual Life Res. 2021 Oct;30(10):2729-2754
pubmed: 34247326
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 04;9(12):e114468
pubmed: 25474472
BMJ. 1998 Feb 28;316(7132):690-3
pubmed: 9522799
BMJ. 2020 Jun 4;369:m1714
pubmed: 32499297
Disabil Rehabil. 2021 Sep 10;:1-15
pubmed: 34505793
J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Sep;55(9):900-8
pubmed: 12393078
Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Aug 15;55(4):526-30
pubmed: 16874795
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):524-34
pubmed: 19926446
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Jan;64(1):34-7
pubmed: 15130902
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015 Jul;67(7):972-80
pubmed: 25581339
J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Mar;34(3):509-14
pubmed: 19258150
Hand Clin. 2003 Feb;19(1):17-31
pubmed: 12683443
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 May;471(5):1406-11
pubmed: 23404422
J Hand Surg Am. 2013 Apr;38(4):641-9
pubmed: 23481405
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2021 Nov;46(9):975-978
pubmed: 34325566
Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 Nov;66 Suppl 3:iii40-1
pubmed: 17934093
Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Nov;18(5):419-23
pubmed: 11151395
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S189-99
pubmed: 22588744
J Orthop Trauma. 1998 Nov-Dec;12(8):577-86
pubmed: 9840793
J Hand Surg Br. 1994 Jun;19(3):340-1
pubmed: 8077824
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015 Nov;40(9):900-12
pubmed: 25320122
Health Serv Res. 2005 Apr;40(2):593-7
pubmed: 15762909
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Dec;68(12):1388-96
pubmed: 25913670
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 Apr;77(4):371-83
pubmed: 11936935
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2016 Jul;41(6):624-31
pubmed: 26744508
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2019 Nov;44(9):937-945
pubmed: 31403875
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Aug;68(8):888-94
pubmed: 25892192
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Apr;62(4):374-9
pubmed: 19013766
J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Oct;57(10):1008-18
pubmed: 15528051
J Hand Ther. 2004 Jan-Mar;17(1):18-23
pubmed: 14770134
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jun;134:95-102
pubmed: 33561528
J Rheumatol. 2015 Nov;42(11):2118-34
pubmed: 26472412
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2019 Feb;44(2):175-180
pubmed: 30217122