Minimally important differences for Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference for individuals with back pain

Dagmar Amtmann, Jiseon Kim, Hyewon Chung, Robert L Askew, Ryoungsun Park, Karon F Cook, Dagmar Amtmann, Jiseon Kim, Hyewon Chung, Robert L Askew, Ryoungsun Park, Karon F Cook

Abstract

Background: The minimally important difference (MID) refers to the smallest change that is sufficiently meaningful to carry implications for patients' care. MIDs are necessary to guide the interpretation of scores. This study estimated MID for the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI).

Methods: Study instruments were administered to 414 people who participated in two studies that included treatment with low back pain (LBP; n=218) or depression (n=196). Participants with LBP received epidural steroid injections and participants with depression received antidepressants, psychotherapy, or both. MIDs were estimated for the changes in LBP. MIDs were included only if a priori criteria were met (ie, sample size ≥10, Spearman correlation ≥0.3 between anchor measures and PROMIS-PI scores, and effect size range =0.2-0.8). The interquartile range (IQR) of MID estimates was calculated.

Results: The IQR ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 points. The lower bound estimate of the IQR (3.5) was greater than mean of standard error of measurement (SEM) both at time 1 (SEM =2.3) and at time 2 (SEM =2.5), indicating that the estimate of MID exceeded measurement error.

Conclusion: Based on our results, researchers and clinicians using PROMIS-PI can assume that change of 3.5 to 5.5 points in comparisons of mean PROMIS-PI scores of people with LBP can be considered meaningful.

Keywords: PROMIS; Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; back pain; minimally important differences; pain interference; responsiveness.

References

    1. Riley WT, Rothrock N, Bruce B, et al. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(9):1311–1321.
    1. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):9–19.
    1. Kim J, Chung H, Amtmann D, Revicki DA, Cook KF. Measurement invariance of the PROMIS pain interference item bank across community and clinical samples. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(3):501–507.
    1. Amtmann D, Cook KF, Jensen MP, et al. Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain. 2010;150(1):173–182.
    1. Pilkonis PA, Choi SW, Reise SP, et al. Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment. 2011;18(3):263–283.
    1. Cook KF, O’Malley KJ, Roddey TS. Dynamic assessment of health outcomes: time to let the CAT out of the bag? Health Serv Res. 2005;40(5 Pt 2):1694–1711.
    1. 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.
    1. Yost KJ, Eton DT, Garcia SF, Cella D. Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(5):507–516.
    1. Bedard G, Zeng L, Lam H, et al. Meaningful change in oncology quality-of-life instruments: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12(4):475–483.
    1. Wong K, Zeng L, Zhang L, et al. Minimal clinically important differences in the brief pain inventory in patients with bone metastases. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(7):1893–1899.
    1. 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.
    1. 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(5):541–546.
    1. Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):172–191.
    1. 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.
    1. de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(1):131–142.
    1. Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, Peterman AH, Merkel DE. Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002;24(6):547–561.
    1. Edwards RR, Klick B, Buenaver L, et al. Symptoms of distress as prospective predictors of pain-related sciatica treatment outcomes. Pain. 2007;130(1–2):47–55.
    1. Turner RJ, McLean PD. Physical disability and psychological distress. Rehabil Psychol. 1989;34(4):225–242.
    1. Banks SM, Kerns RD. Explaining high rates of depression in chronic pain: a diathesis–stress framework. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(1):95–110.
    1. Ohayon MM, Schatzberg AF. Using chronic pain to predict depressive morbidity in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(1):39–47.
    1. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23(1):56–62.
    1. Hamilton M. Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1967;6(4):278–296.
    1. Pilkonis PA, Yu L, Dodds NE, Johnston KL, Maihoefer CC, Lawrence SM. Validation of the depression item bank from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) in a three-month observational study. J Psychiatr Res. 2014;56:112–119.
    1. Liu H, Cella D, Gershon R, et al. Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1169–1178.
    1. Cleeland C. Measurement of pain by subjective report. In: Chapman C, Loeser J, editors. Advances in Pain Research and Therapy. Vol. 12. New York: Raven Press; 1989. pp. 391–403. (Issues in Pain Measurement).
    1. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983;8(2):141–144.
    1. de Vet HC, Beckerman H, Terwee CB, Terluin B, Bouter LM. Definition of clinical differences. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(2):434. author reply 435.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, et al. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(2):400–405.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Butt Z, Wagner LI, Beaumont JL, et al. Use of a single-item screening tool to detect clinically significant fatigue, pain, distress, and anorexia in ambulatory cancer practice. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008;35(1):20–30.
    1. Farrar JT, Young JP, Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149–158.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther. 1998;78(11):1186–1196.
    1. SAS Institute Inc . Base SAS® 9.3 Procedures Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2011.
    1. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA. 1999;282(18):1737–1744.
    1. Teh CF, Zaslavsky AM, Reynolds CF, Cleary PD. Effect of depression treatment on chronic pain outcomes. Psychosom Med. 2010;72(1):61–67.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel