严重下肢创伤患者短期肌肉骨骼功能评估 (SMFA) 的最小临床意义差异 (MCID):来自 7 项多中心、前瞻性临床试验的汇总数据。

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Anthony R Carlini, Julie Agel, Michael J Bosse, Katherine P Frey, Elena D Staguhn, Heather A Vallier, William Obremskey, Marc F Swiontkowski, Lisa K Cannada, Paul Tornetta, Ellen J MacKenzie, Robert V O'Toole, Lisa Reider, Lauren E Allen, Susan C Collins, Renan C Castillo
{"title":"严重下肢创伤患者短期肌肉骨骼功能评估 (SMFA) 的最小临床意义差异 (MCID):来自 7 项多中心、前瞻性临床试验的汇总数据。","authors":"Anthony R Carlini, Julie Agel, Michael J Bosse, Katherine P Frey, Elena D Staguhn, Heather A Vallier, William Obremskey, Marc F Swiontkowski, Lisa K Cannada, Paul Tornetta, Ellen J MacKenzie, Robert V O'Toole, Lisa Reider, Lauren E Allen, Susan C Collins, Renan C Castillo","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.23.01201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) is a well validated, widely used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure for orthopaedic patients. Despite its widespread use and acceptance, this measure does not have an agreed upon minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The purpose of the present study was to create distributional MCIDs with use of a large cohort of research participants with severe lower extremity fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three distributional approaches were used to calculate MCIDs for the Dysfunction and Bother Indices of the SMFA as well as all its domains: (1) half of the standard deviation (one-half SD), (2) twice the standard error of measurement (2SEM), and (3) minimal detectable change (MDC). In addition to evaluating by patient characteristics and the timing of assessment, we reviewed these calculations across several injury groups likely to affect functional outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4,298 SMFA assessments were collected from 3,185 patients who had undergone surgical treatment of traumatic injuries of the lower extremity at 60 Level-I trauma centers across 7 multicenter, prospective clinical studies. Depending on the statistical approach used, the MCID associated with the overall sample ranged from 7.7 to 10.7 for the SMFA Dysfunction Index and from 11.0 to 16.8 for the SMFA Bother Index. For the Dysfunction Index, the variability across the scores was small (<5%) within the sex and age subgroups but was modest (12% to 18%) across subgroups related to assessment timing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A defensible MCID can be found between 7 and 11 points for the Dysfunction Index and between 11 and 17 points for the Bother Index. The precise choice of MCID may depend on the preferred statistical approach and the population under study. While differences exist between MCID values based on the calculation method, values were consistent across the categories of the various subgroups presented.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma: Pooled Data from 7 Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Anthony R Carlini, Julie Agel, Michael J Bosse, Katherine P Frey, Elena D Staguhn, Heather A Vallier, William Obremskey, Marc F Swiontkowski, Lisa K Cannada, Paul Tornetta, Ellen J MacKenzie, Robert V O'Toole, Lisa Reider, Lauren E Allen, Susan C Collins, Renan C Castillo\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.23.01201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) is a well validated, widely used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure for orthopaedic patients. Despite its widespread use and acceptance, this measure does not have an agreed upon minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The purpose of the present study was to create distributional MCIDs with use of a large cohort of research participants with severe lower extremity fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three distributional approaches were used to calculate MCIDs for the Dysfunction and Bother Indices of the SMFA as well as all its domains: (1) half of the standard deviation (one-half SD), (2) twice the standard error of measurement (2SEM), and (3) minimal detectable change (MDC). In addition to evaluating by patient characteristics and the timing of assessment, we reviewed these calculations across several injury groups likely to affect functional outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4,298 SMFA assessments were collected from 3,185 patients who had undergone surgical treatment of traumatic injuries of the lower extremity at 60 Level-I trauma centers across 7 multicenter, prospective clinical studies. Depending on the statistical approach used, the MCID associated with the overall sample ranged from 7.7 to 10.7 for the SMFA Dysfunction Index and from 11.0 to 16.8 for the SMFA Bother Index. For the Dysfunction Index, the variability across the scores was small (<5%) within the sex and age subgroups but was modest (12% to 18%) across subgroups related to assessment timing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A defensible MCID can be found between 7 and 11 points for the Dysfunction Index and between 11 and 17 points for the Bother Index. The precise choice of MCID may depend on the preferred statistical approach and the population under study. While differences exist between MCID values based on the calculation method, values were consistent across the categories of the various subgroups presented.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.01201\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.01201","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:简短肌肉骨骼功能评估(SMFA)是一项针对骨科患者的经过充分验证、广泛使用的患者报告结果(PRO)测量方法。尽管该测量方法被广泛使用和接受,但其最小临床重要差异(MCID)尚未得到一致认可。本研究的目的是利用一大批严重下肢骨折的研究参与者来建立分布式 MCID:本研究采用了三种分布方法来计算 SMFA 的功能障碍和烦扰指数及其所有领域的 MCID:(1) 标准差的一半 (二分之一 SD),(2) 测量标准误差的两倍 (2SEM),(3) 最小可检测变化 (MDC)。除了根据患者特征和评估时间进行评估外,我们还对可能影响功能结果的几个损伤组别进行了审查:在 7 项多中心、前瞻性临床研究中,我们从 60 个一级创伤中心的 3,185 名接受下肢创伤手术治疗的患者中收集了共 4,298 次 SMFA 评估。根据所使用的统计方法,总体样本中 SMFA 功能障碍指数的 MCID 从 7.7 到 10.7 不等,SMFA 烦闷指数的 MCID 从 11.0 到 16.8 不等。就功能失调指数而言,各分数之间的变异性很小(结论:功能障碍指数的 MCID 值在 7 到 11 分之间,而烦扰指数的 MCID 值在 11 到 17 分之间,这两个指数的 MCID 值都是合理的。MCID 的精确选择可能取决于首选的统计方法和研究人群。虽然不同计算方法的 MCID 值存在差异,但不同亚组的 MCID 值是一致的:预后III级。有关证据等级的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma: Pooled Data from 7 Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Trials.

Background: The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) is a well validated, widely used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure for orthopaedic patients. Despite its widespread use and acceptance, this measure does not have an agreed upon minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The purpose of the present study was to create distributional MCIDs with use of a large cohort of research participants with severe lower extremity fractures.

Methods: Three distributional approaches were used to calculate MCIDs for the Dysfunction and Bother Indices of the SMFA as well as all its domains: (1) half of the standard deviation (one-half SD), (2) twice the standard error of measurement (2SEM), and (3) minimal detectable change (MDC). In addition to evaluating by patient characteristics and the timing of assessment, we reviewed these calculations across several injury groups likely to affect functional outcomes.

Results: A total of 4,298 SMFA assessments were collected from 3,185 patients who had undergone surgical treatment of traumatic injuries of the lower extremity at 60 Level-I trauma centers across 7 multicenter, prospective clinical studies. Depending on the statistical approach used, the MCID associated with the overall sample ranged from 7.7 to 10.7 for the SMFA Dysfunction Index and from 11.0 to 16.8 for the SMFA Bother Index. For the Dysfunction Index, the variability across the scores was small (<5%) within the sex and age subgroups but was modest (12% to 18%) across subgroups related to assessment timing.

Conclusions: A defensible MCID can be found between 7 and 11 points for the Dysfunction Index and between 11 and 17 points for the Bother Index. The precise choice of MCID may depend on the preferred statistical approach and the population under study. While differences exist between MCID values based on the calculation method, values were consistent across the categories of the various subgroups presented.

Level of evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
×
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