U669 -Mental Health and Public Health, Inserm, Maison de Solenn, 97 boulevard du Port-Royal, 75014 Paris, France; UMR-S0669, Université Paris-Sud and Université Paris Descartes, Maison de Solenn, 97 boulevard du Port-Royal, 75014 Paris, France; Research Unit on Children's Psychosocial Maladjustment, University of Montreal, 3050 Édouard Montpetit, H3T 1J7, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; EA 4275, Biostatistics, Clinical Research and Subjective Measures in Health Sciences, University of Nantes, Faculté de Médecine & Pharmacie, 1, rue Gaston Veil - BP 53508, 44035 Nantes Cedex 1, France; Department of Public Health, University of Angers, CHU Angers- 49933 Angers cedex 9, France.
EA 4275, Biostatistics, Clinical Research and Subjective Measures in Health Sciences, University of Nantes, Faculté de Médecine & Pharmacie, 1, rue Gaston Veil - BP 53508, 44035 Nantes Cedex 1, France.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):433-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.009. Epub 2014 Jan 18.
Determining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of questionnaires on an interval scale, the trait level (TL) scale, using item response theory (IRT) models could overcome its association with baseline severity. The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and predictive values (PVs) of the MCID determined on the score scale (MCID-Sc) or the TL scale (MCID-TL).
The MCID-Sc and MCID-TL of the MOS-SF36 general health subscale were determined for deterioration and improvement on a cohort of 1,170 patients using an anchor-based method and a partial credit model. The Se, Sp, and PV were calculated using the global rating of change (the anchor) as the gold standard test.
The MCID-Sc magnitude was smaller for improvement (1.58 points) than for deterioration (-7.91 points). The Se, Sp, and PV were similar for MCID-Sc and MCID-TL in both cases. However, if the MCID was defined on the score scale as a function of a range of baseline scores, its Se, Sp, and PV were consistently higher.
This study reinforces the recommendations concerning the use of an MCID-Sc defined as a function of a range of baseline scores.
使用项目反应理论(IRT)模型确定区间量表问卷的最小临床重要差异(MCID),即特质水平(TL)量表,可以克服其与基线严重程度的关联。本研究旨在比较基于评分的 MCID(MCID-Sc)或特质水平 MCID(MCID-TL)的 MCID 确定的敏感性(Se)、特异性(Sp)和预测值(PV)。
使用基于锚的方法和部分信用模型,对 1170 名患者的队列确定 MOS-SF36 一般健康子量表的 MCID-Sc 和 MCID-TL ,用于恶化和改善。使用总体变化评分(锚)作为金标准测试来计算 Se、Sp 和 PV。
改善的 MCID-Sc 幅度较小(1.58 分),而恶化的幅度较大(-7.91 分)。在两种情况下,MCID-Sc 和 MCID-TL 的 Se、Sp 和 PV 均相似。然而,如果将 MCID 定义为基于基线评分范围的评分量表上的函数,则其 Se、Sp 和 PV 始终更高。
本研究加强了关于将 MCID-Sc 定义为基于基线评分范围的函数的建议。