Huang Minxuan, Chan Kitty S, Zanni Jennifer M, Parry Selina M, Neto Saint-Clair G B, Neto Jose A A, da Silva Vinicius Z M, Kho Michelle E, Needham Dale M
1Outcome After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.2Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.3Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.4Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.5Department of Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.6Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Catolica de Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.7Department of Physical Therapy, Hospital Santa Luzia, Brasilia, Brazil.8Department of Research and Education, D'OR Institute, Brasilia, Brazil.9Health Sciences Program, Escola Superior de Ciencias da Saude, Brasilia, Brazil.10Department of Physical Therapy, Hospital de Base do Distrito Federal, Brasilia, Brazil.11School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Crit Care Med. 2016 Dec;44(12):e1155-e1164. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001949.
To evaluate the internal consistency, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference of the Functional Status Score for the ICU, a physical function measure designed for the ICU.
Clinimetric analysis.
Five international datasets from the United States, Australia, and Brazil.
Eight hundred nineteen ICU patients.
None.
Clinimetric analyses were initially conducted separately for each data source and time point to examine generalizability of findings, with pooled analyses performed thereafter to increase power of analyses. The Functional Status Score for the ICU demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency. There was good convergent and discriminant validity, with significant and positive correlations (r = 0.30-0.95) between Functional Status Score for the ICU and other physical function measures, and generally weaker correlations with nonphysical measures (|r| = 0.01-0.70). Known group validity was demonstrated by significantly higher Functional Status Score for the ICU scores among patients without ICU-acquired weakness (Medical Research Council sum score, ≥ 48 vs < 48) and with hospital discharge to home (vs healthcare facility). Functional Status Score for the ICU at ICU discharge predicted post-ICU hospital length of stay and discharge location. Responsiveness was supported via increased Functional Status Score for the ICU scores with improvements in muscle strength. Distribution-based methods indicated a minimal important difference of 2.0-5.0.
The Functional Status Score for the ICU has good internal consistency and is a valid and responsive measure of physical function for ICU patients. The estimated minimal important difference can be used in sample size calculations and in interpreting studies comparing the physical function of groups of ICU patients.
评估重症监护病房功能状态评分(Functional Status Score for the ICU)的内部一致性、效度、反应度和最小重要差异,该评分是一种为重症监护病房设计的身体功能测量方法。
临床测量分析。
来自美国、澳大利亚和巴西的五个国际数据集。
819名重症监护病房患者。
无。
最初对每个数据源和时间点分别进行临床测量分析,以检验结果的普遍性,之后进行汇总分析以增强分析效能。重症监护病房功能状态评分显示出良好至优秀的内部一致性。具有良好的收敛效度和区分效度,重症监护病房功能状态评分与其他身体功能测量指标之间存在显著正相关(r = 0.30 - 0.95),与非身体测量指标的相关性通常较弱(|r| = 0.01 - 0.70)。在没有发生重症监护病房获得性肌无力的患者(医学研究委员会总分,≥ 48 分与 < 48 分)以及出院回家(与入住医疗机构相比)的患者中,重症监护病房功能状态评分显著更高,证明了已知组效度。重症监护病房出院时的重症监护病房功能状态评分可预测重症监护病房后住院时间和出院地点。随着肌肉力量的改善,重症监护病房功能状态评分升高,支持了反应度。基于分布的方法表明最小重要差异为2.0 - 5.0。
重症监护病房功能状态评分具有良好的内部一致性,是评估重症监护病房患者身体功能的有效且有反应度的指标。估计的最小重要差异可用于样本量计算以及解释比较重症监护病房患者组身体功能的研究。