类风湿关节炎中使用的测量仪器的最小重要差异:范围回顾。

IF 2.1 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY
Sally Yaacoub, Anas El Zouhbi, Michella Abi Zeid Daou, Vicky Nahra, Abir Mokbel, Layal Hneiny, Liana Fraenkel, Bradley C Johnston, Elie A Akl
{"title":"类风湿关节炎中使用的测量仪器的最小重要差异:范围回顾。","authors":"Sally Yaacoub, Anas El Zouhbi, Michella Abi Zeid Daou, Vicky Nahra, Abir Mokbel, Layal Hneiny, Liana Fraenkel, Bradley C Johnston, Elie A Akl","doi":"10.1186/s41927-025-00524-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many outcomes relevant to rheumatoid arthritis are measured as continuous variables. Judging whether the results of those measurements are clinically significant requires determining the minimal important difference (MID) estimate. Therefore, valid MID estimate(s) are essential for the purposes of clinical decision-making and developing clinical recommendations. Our objective is to present the MID estimates for instruments used to measure outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review. We included original research reports on MID of instruments used to measure outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, using distribution- or anchor-based methods. We excluded conference abstracts. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) databases on January 6, 2025 and scanned the reference lists of included studies and of identified relevant systematic reviews. Reviewers screened the titles and abstracts and full-texts, then abstracted data in duplicate and independently. They resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. We summarized the data narratively and in tabular formats.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 35 eligible studies reporting on a total of 144 MID estimates for 72 instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis. The most common constructs measured were physical function (26%), disease activity (18%), health status (17%) and fatigue (14%). The majority of measurement instruments were generic (60%). The most common instrument with MID estimates was the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (7%). The majority of MID estimates were calculated using anchor-based methods (72%). We did not critically appraise the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified the MID estimates for a substantive number of measurement instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis. There was considerable variability in the findings for the same instrument within and across studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":9150,"journal":{"name":"BMC Rheumatology","volume":"9 1","pages":"83"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12235810/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimal important differences of measurement instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Sally Yaacoub, Anas El Zouhbi, Michella Abi Zeid Daou, Vicky Nahra, Abir Mokbel, Layal Hneiny, Liana Fraenkel, Bradley C Johnston, Elie A Akl\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41927-025-00524-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many outcomes relevant to rheumatoid arthritis are measured as continuous variables. Judging whether the results of those measurements are clinically significant requires determining the minimal important difference (MID) estimate. Therefore, valid MID estimate(s) are essential for the purposes of clinical decision-making and developing clinical recommendations. Our objective is to present the MID estimates for instruments used to measure outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review. We included original research reports on MID of instruments used to measure outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, using distribution- or anchor-based methods. We excluded conference abstracts. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) databases on January 6, 2025 and scanned the reference lists of included studies and of identified relevant systematic reviews. Reviewers screened the titles and abstracts and full-texts, then abstracted data in duplicate and independently. They resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. We summarized the data narratively and in tabular formats.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 35 eligible studies reporting on a total of 144 MID estimates for 72 instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis. The most common constructs measured were physical function (26%), disease activity (18%), health status (17%) and fatigue (14%). The majority of measurement instruments were generic (60%). The most common instrument with MID estimates was the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (7%). The majority of MID estimates were calculated using anchor-based methods (72%). We did not critically appraise the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified the MID estimates for a substantive number of measurement instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis. There was considerable variability in the findings for the same instrument within and across studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Rheumatology\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"83\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12235810/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-025-00524-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-025-00524-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:许多与类风湿关节炎相关的结果被测量为连续变量。判断这些测量结果是否具有临床意义需要确定最小重要差异(MID)估定值。因此,有效的MID估计对于临床决策和制定临床建议至关重要。我们的目的是提出用于测量类风湿关节炎研究结果的仪器的MID估计。方法:我们进行了范围综述。我们纳入了用于测量类风湿关节炎结果的仪器MID的原始研究报告,使用分布或锚定方法。我们排除了会议摘要。我们于2025年1月6日检索MEDLINE (OVID)和EMBASE (OVID)数据库,扫描纳入研究的参考文献列表和确定的相关系统评价。审稿人筛选标题、摘要和全文,然后一式两份独立地提取数据。他们通过讨论或咨询第三方审稿人来解决分歧。我们以叙述和表格的形式总结了数据。结果:我们确定了35项符合条件的研究,报告了72种用于类风湿关节炎的器械的144个MID估计。最常见的概念是身体机能(26%)、疾病活动(18%)、健康状况(17%)和疲劳(14%)。大多数测量仪器是通用的(60%)。最常用的MID估计工具是健康评估问卷残疾指数(7%)。大多数MID估计使用基于锚点的方法计算(72%)。我们没有对纳入的研究进行批判性评价。结论:我们确定了用于类风湿关节炎的大量测量仪器的MID估计。同一种仪器的研究结果在研究内部和研究之间存在相当大的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minimal important differences of measurement instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping review.

Background: Many outcomes relevant to rheumatoid arthritis are measured as continuous variables. Judging whether the results of those measurements are clinically significant requires determining the minimal important difference (MID) estimate. Therefore, valid MID estimate(s) are essential for the purposes of clinical decision-making and developing clinical recommendations. Our objective is to present the MID estimates for instruments used to measure outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis studies.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review. We included original research reports on MID of instruments used to measure outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, using distribution- or anchor-based methods. We excluded conference abstracts. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) databases on January 6, 2025 and scanned the reference lists of included studies and of identified relevant systematic reviews. Reviewers screened the titles and abstracts and full-texts, then abstracted data in duplicate and independently. They resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. We summarized the data narratively and in tabular formats.

Results: We identified 35 eligible studies reporting on a total of 144 MID estimates for 72 instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis. The most common constructs measured were physical function (26%), disease activity (18%), health status (17%) and fatigue (14%). The majority of measurement instruments were generic (60%). The most common instrument with MID estimates was the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (7%). The majority of MID estimates were calculated using anchor-based methods (72%). We did not critically appraise the included studies.

Conclusions: We identified the MID estimates for a substantive number of measurement instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis. There was considerable variability in the findings for the same instrument within and across studies.

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
BMC Rheumatology
BMC Rheumatology Medicine-Rheumatology
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信