Clinical Locomotion Science, Institute for Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense, Denmark.
Eur Spine J. 2009 Dec;18(12):1858-66. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1070-1. Epub 2009 Jun 23.
Understanding changes in patient-reported outcomes is indispensable for interpretation of results from clinical studies. As a consequence the term "minimal clinically important difference" (MCID) was coined in the late 1980s to ease classification of patients into improved, not changed or deteriorated. Several methodological categories have been developed determining the MCID, however, all are subject to weaknesses or biases reducing the validity of the reported MCID. The objective of this study was to determine the reproducibility and validity of a novel method for estimating low back pain (LBP) patients' view of an acceptable change (MCID(pre)) before treatment begins. One-hundred and forty-seven patients with chronic LBP were recruited from an out-patient hospital back pain unit and followed over an 8-week period. Original and modified versions of the Oswestry disability index (ODI), Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ) and numeric pain rating scale (NRS(pain)) were filled in at baseline. The modified questionnaires determined what the patient considered an acceptable post-treatment outcome which allowed us to calculate the MCID(pre). Concurrent comparisons between the MCID(pre), instrument measurement error and a retrospective approach of establishing the minimal clinically important difference (MCID(post)) were made. The results showed the prospective acceptable outcome method scores to have acceptable reproducibility outside measurement error. MCID(pre) was 4.5 larger for the ODI and 1.5 times larger for BQ and NRS(pain) compared to the MCID(post). Furthermore, MCID(pre) and patients post-treatment acceptable change was almost equal for the NRS(pain) but not for the ODI and BQ. In conclusion, chronic LBP patients have a reasonably realistic idea of an acceptable change in pain, but probably an overly optimistic view of changes in functional and psychological/affective domains before treatment begins.
了解患者报告结局的变化对于解释临床研究结果是必不可少的。因此,在 20 世纪 80 年代后期创造了“最小临床重要差异”(MCID)这一术语,以便将患者分为改善、无变化或恶化。已经开发了几种确定 MCID 的方法类别,但是所有这些方法都存在弱点或偏差,降低了报告的 MCID 的有效性。本研究的目的是确定一种新的方法在治疗开始前估计慢性腰痛(LBP)患者对可接受变化(MCID(pre))的观点的可重复性和有效性。从一家门诊医院腰痛单位招募了 147 名慢性 LBP 患者,并在 8 周的时间内进行了随访。在基线时填写原始和修改后的 Oswestry 残疾指数(ODI)、伯恩茅斯问卷(BQ)和数字疼痛评分量表(NRS(疼痛))。修改后的问卷确定了患者认为可接受的治疗后结果,这使我们能够计算 MCID(pre)。在 MCID(pre)、仪器测量误差和建立最小临床重要差异(MCID(post))的回顾性方法之间进行了同时比较。结果表明,前瞻性可接受结果方法的评分在测量误差之外具有可接受的可重复性。与 MCID(post)相比,ODI 的 MCID(pre)大 4.5,BQ 和 NRS(疼痛)大 1.5 倍。此外,对于 NRS(疼痛),MCID(pre)和患者治疗后可接受的变化几乎相等,但对于 ODI 和 BQ 则不然。总之,慢性 LBP 患者对疼痛的可接受变化有一个相当现实的想法,但在治疗开始前对功能和心理/情感领域的变化可能持过于乐观的看法。