Minimal important difference in weight loss following bariatric surgery: Enhancing BODY-Q interpretability.
BODY‐Q
bariatric surgery
metabolic surgery
minimal important clinical difference
minimal important difference
patient‐reported outcome measure
weight loss surgery
Journal
Clinical obesity
ISSN: 1758-8111
Titre abrégé: Clin Obes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101560587
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 May 2024
22 May 2024
Historique:
revised:
04
04
2024
received:
24
01
2024
accepted:
23
04
2024
medline:
23
5
2024
pubmed:
23
5
2024
entrez:
22
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
BODY-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure for comprehensive assessment of outcomes specific to patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The clinical utility of BODY-Q is hampered by the lack of guidance on score interpretation. This study aimed to determine minimal important difference (MID) for assessment of BODY-Q. Prospective BODY-Q data from Denmark and the Netherlands pre- and post-bariatric surgery were collected. Two distribution-based methods were used to estimate MID by 0.2 standard deviations of baseline scores and the mean standardized response change of scores from baseline to 3-years postoperatively. In total, 5476 assessments from 2253 participants were included of which 1628 (72.3%) underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 586 (26.0%) sleeve gastrectomy, 33 (1.5%) gastric banding, and 6 (0.03%) other surgeries. The mean age was 45.1 ± 10.9 with a mean BMI of 46.6 ± 9.6. Baseline MID ranged from 1 to 4 in health-related quality of life (HRQL) and from 2 to 8 in appearance scales. The mean change of scores ranged from 4 to 5 in HRQL and from 4 to 7 in the appearance scales. The estimated MID for the change in BODY-Q HRQL and appearance scales ranged from 3 to 8 and is recommended for use to interpret BODY-Q scores and assess treatment effects in bariatric surgery.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e12675Subventions
Organisme : Jascha Fonden
ID : 2021-0183
Organisme : Region Syddanmark
ID : 21/17592
Organisme : Odense Universitetshospital
ID : A5006
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Obesity published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of World Obesity Federation.
Références
Shoar S, Mahmoudzadeh H, Naderan M, et al. Long‐term outcome of bariatric surgery in morbidly obese adolescents: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of 950 patients with a minimum of 3 years follow‐up. Obes Surg. 2017;27(12):3110‐3117.
Mou D, DeVries CEE, Pater N, et al. BODY‐Q patient‐reported outcomes measure (PROM) to assess sleeve gastrectomy vs. Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass: eating behavior, eating‐related distress, and eating‐related symptoms. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(8):4609‐4617.
Makarawung DJS, de Vries CEE, List EB, et al. Patient‐level factors associated with health‐related quality of life and satisfaction with body after bariatric surgery: a multicenter, cross‐sectional study. Obes Surg. 2022;32(9):3079‐3087.
de Vries CEE, Terwee CB, Al Nawas M, et al. Outcomes of the first global multidisciplinary consensus meeting including persons living with obesity to standardize patient‐reported outcome measurement in obesity treatment research. Obes Rev. 2022;23:e13452.
Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Alderman A, et al. The BODY‐Q: a patient‐reported outcome instrument for weight loss and body contouring treatments. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4(4):e679.
de Vries CEE, Kalff MC, Prinsen CAC, et al. Recommendations on the most suitable quality‐of‐life measurement instruments for bariatric and body contouring surgery: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2018;19(10):1395‐1411.
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R, Tambone V, Persichetti P. Patient‐reported satisfaction following post‐bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42(5):1320‐1330.
Warkentin LM, Majumdar SR, Johnson JA, et al. Weight loss required by the severely obese to achieve clinically important differences in health‐related quality of life: two‐year prospective cohort study. BMC Med. 2014;12:175.
McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. Jama. 2014;312(13):1342‐1343.
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(2):102‐109.
Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(4):371‐383.
Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(11):1215‐1219.
Voineskos SH, Nelson JA, Klassen AF, Pusic AL. Measuring patient‐reported outcomes: key metrics in reconstructive surgery. Annu Rev Med. 2018;69:467‐479.
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science. 2nd ed. Academic Press; 1988.
Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15(2):141‐155.
Terwee CB, Peipert JD, Chapman R, et al. Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(10):2729‐2754.
de Vet HC, Terluin B, Knol DL, et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied “minimally important change” values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):37‐45.
Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health‐related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395‐407.
Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(2):285‐295.
Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ, et al. A combination of distribution‐ and anchor‐based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(9):898‐910.
Patient‐Focused Drug Development: Incorporating Clinical Outcome Assessments into Endpoints for Regulatory Decision‐Making. Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Staff, and Other Stakeholders. April 2023; pp. 1–41. Accessed July 25, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/media/166830/download
Dijkhorst PJ, Makarawung DJS, Vanhommerig JW, et al. Predictors of improved psychological function after bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2023;19:872‐881.
Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ. How a well‐grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:69.
Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Guidance for Industry, FDA. 2009. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-reported-outcome-measures-use-medical-product-development-support-labeling-claims
Poulsen L, Klassen A, Rose M, et al. Psychometric validation of the BODY‐Q in Danish patients undergoing weight loss and body contouring surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(10):e1529.
de Vries CEE, Tsangaris E, Makarawung DJS, et al. Validation of the Dutch version of the BODY‐Q measuring appearance, health‐related quality of life, and experience of healthcare in patients undergoing bariatric and body contouring surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2023;43(5):569‐579.
Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Kaur M, Breitkopf T, Pusic AL. Further psychometric validation of the BODY‐Q: ability to detect change following bariatric surgery weight gain and loss. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):227.
Poulsen L, Rose M, Klassen A, Roessler KK, Sørensen JA. Danish translation and linguistic validation of the BODY‐Q: a description of the process. Eur J Plast Surg. 2017;40(1):29‐38.
Chu JJ, Tadros AB, Gallo L, et al. Interpreting the BREAST‐Q for breast‐conserving therapy: minimal important differences and clinical reference values. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023;30(7):4075‐4084.
Voineskos SH, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Pusic AL, Gibbons CJ. Giving meaning to differences in BREAST‐Q scores: minimal important difference for breast reconstruction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(1):11e‐20e.
Dalaei F, de Vries CEE, Poulsen L, et al. Body contouring surgery after bariatric surgery improves long‐term health‐related quality of life and satisfaction with appearance: an international longitudinal cohort study using the BODY‐Q. Ann Surg. 2024;279:1008‐1017.
Elfanagely O, Rios‐Diaz AJ, Cunning JR, et al. A prospective, matched comparison of health‐related quality of life in bariatric patients following truncal body contouring. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;149(6):1338‐1347.
Elfanagely O, Othman S, Mellia JA, Messa CA, Fischer JP. Quality of life and complications in the morbidly obese patient following post‐bariatric body contouring. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021;45(3):1105‐1112.
Uimonen M, Repo JP, Homsy P, et al. Health‐related quality of life in patients having undergone abdominoplasty after massive weight loss. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(9):2296‐2302.
Dalaei F, de Vries CEE, Poulsen L, et al. General population normative scores for interpreting the BODY‐Q. Clin Obes. 2022;12:e12528.
Dalaei F, de Vries CEE, Cano SJ, et al. BODY‐Q normative scores: psychometric validation of the BODY‐Q in the general population in Europe and North America. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023;11(11):e5401.
Devji T, Carrasco‐Labra A, Qasim A, et al. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study. BMJ. 2020;369:m1714.
Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health‐related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(11):1153‐1160.