Patient-Determined Important Change for the Neck Disability Index With Application of Credibility Analysis: An Exploratory Study.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Brian A Young, David M Boland, Shane L Koppenhaver, Emilio J Puentedura, Joshua A Cleland
{"title":"Patient-Determined Important Change for the Neck Disability Index With Application of Credibility Analysis: An Exploratory Study.","authors":"Brian A Young, David M Boland, Shane L Koppenhaver, Emilio J Puentedura, Joshua A Cleland","doi":"10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.08.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purposes of this study were to preliminarily report patient-identified change for the neck disability index (NDI) as either important or not important with time between follow-up of approximately 7 to 10 days and assess the credibility of the preliminary results with the use of a recently established credibility instrument.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a secondary analysis from a primary randomized clinical trial assessing short-term physical therapist care for individuals with mechanical neck pain. Neck disability index scores and participant-reported importance of global rating of change scores from 42 participants were analyzed from a randomized clinical trial assessing short-term responses to thoracic manipulation and dry needling for neck pain. Patient-important change was computed using receiver operating characteristic curves, and statistical error of the measurement was calculated using (SD × [1 - r]<sup>1/2</sup>) × 1.96 to assess measurement error at the 95% CI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-six participants rated global rating of change as important, and 6 rated it as not important. Patient-important change was calculated at 3.5 NDI points on a 0 to 50 NDI scoring scale. This value exceeded the statistical error, which was calculated at 2.16 NDI points. The credibility analysis revealed that 4 of 5 criteria showed strong credibility for the patient-important change estimate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using patient-determined importance to dichotomize improvement may yield a lower threshold than current researcher-defined methods. Clinically, these results may be more responsive to patient-centric change than using previously reported minimal clinically important difference data.</p>","PeriodicalId":16132,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.08.016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The purposes of this study were to preliminarily report patient-identified change for the neck disability index (NDI) as either important or not important with time between follow-up of approximately 7 to 10 days and assess the credibility of the preliminary results with the use of a recently established credibility instrument.

Methods: This study was a secondary analysis from a primary randomized clinical trial assessing short-term physical therapist care for individuals with mechanical neck pain. Neck disability index scores and participant-reported importance of global rating of change scores from 42 participants were analyzed from a randomized clinical trial assessing short-term responses to thoracic manipulation and dry needling for neck pain. Patient-important change was computed using receiver operating characteristic curves, and statistical error of the measurement was calculated using (SD × [1 - r]1/2) × 1.96 to assess measurement error at the 95% CI.

Results: Thirty-six participants rated global rating of change as important, and 6 rated it as not important. Patient-important change was calculated at 3.5 NDI points on a 0 to 50 NDI scoring scale. This value exceeded the statistical error, which was calculated at 2.16 NDI points. The credibility analysis revealed that 4 of 5 criteria showed strong credibility for the patient-important change estimate.

Conclusion: Using patient-determined importance to dichotomize improvement may yield a lower threshold than current researcher-defined methods. Clinically, these results may be more responsive to patient-centric change than using previously reported minimal clinically important difference data.

应用可信度分析由患者决定颈部残疾指数的重要变化:一项探索性研究
研究目的本研究的目的是初步报告患者认定的颈部残疾指数(NDI)在大约 7 到 10 天的随访时间内发生的重要或不重要的变化,并使用最近建立的可信度工具评估初步结果的可信度:本研究是对一项主要随机临床试验的二次分析,该试验评估了理疗师对机械性颈部疼痛患者的短期护理。本研究分析了一项随机临床试验的42名参与者的颈部残疾指数评分和参与者报告的全球变化评分重要性,该试验评估了胸椎手法和干针治疗颈部疼痛的短期效果。使用接收者操作特征曲线计算患者重要度变化,并使用(SD × [1 - r]1/2) × 1.96计算测量的统计误差,以评估95% CI的测量误差:结果:36 位参与者将总体变化评级评为重要,6 位评为不重要。在 0 到 50 分的 NDI 评分标准中,患者重要变化按 3.5 分计算。该值超过了统计误差,统计误差为 2.16 NDI 分。可信度分析表明,在 5 项标准中,有 4 项标准显示患者重要变化估计值具有很高的可信度:结论:与目前由研究人员定义的方法相比,使用由患者决定的重要性对改善情况进行二分法可能会产生更低的阈值。在临床上,这些结果可能比使用以前报告的最小临床重要性差异数据更能反映以患者为中心的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
63
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) is an international and interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the advancement of conservative health care principles and practices. The JMPT is the premier biomedical publication in the chiropractic profession and publishes peer reviewed, research articles and the Journal''s editorial board includes leading researchers from around the world. The Journal publishes original primary research and review articles of the highest quality in relevant topic areas. The JMPT addresses practitioners and researchers needs by adding to their clinical and basic science knowledge and by informing them about relevant issues that influence health care practices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信