The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale

被引:21
|
作者
Tipping, Claire J. [1 ,2 ]
Holland, Anne E. [2 ,3 ]
Harrold, Meg [4 ]
Crawford, Tom [5 ]
Halliburton, Nick [6 ]
Hodgson, Carol L. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Australian & New Zealand Intens Care Res Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Alfred Hosp, Dept Physiotherapy, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] La Trobe Univ, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Curtin Univ, Facil Hlth Sci, Perth, WA, Australia
[5] Univ Hosp Geelong, Dept Physiotherapy, Geelong, Vic, Australia
[6] Ballarat Base Hosp, Dept Physiotherapy, Ballarat, Vic, Australia
来源
HEART & LUNG | 2018年 / 47卷 / 05期
关键词
Intensive care unit; Outcome measures; Clinimetric properties; ICU mobility scale; Rehabilitation; CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE-OXYGENATION; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; PHYSICAL FUNCTION; HEALTH-STATUS; RESPONSIVENESS; MEANINGFUL; TRANSPLANTATION; MOBILIZATION; AUSTRALIA;
D O I
10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.07.009
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The intensive care unit mobility scale (IMS) is reliable, valid and responsive. Establishing the minimal important difference (MID) of the IMS is important in order to detect clinically significant changes in mobilization. Objective: To calculate the MID of the IMS in intensive care unit patients. Methods: Prospective multi center observational study. The IMS was collected from admission and discharge physiotherapy assessments. To calculate the MID we used; anchor based methods (global rating of change) and two distribution-based methods (standard error of the mean and effect size). Results: We enrolled 184 adult patients; mean age 62.0 years, surgical, trauma, and medical. Anchor based methods gave a MID of 3 with area under the curve 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.97). The two distribution based methods gave a MID between 0.89 and 1.40. Conclusion: These data increase our understanding of the clinimetric properties of the IMS, improving its utility for clinical practice and research. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:497 / 501
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of Edinburgh postnatal depression scale
    Mao, Fangxiang
    Sun, Yaoyao
    Wang, Juan
    Huang, Yongqi
    Lu, Yane
    Cao, Fenglin
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2021, 66
  • [22] Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of Modified Ashworth Scale in patients with stroke
    Chen, Chia-Ling
    Chen, Chung-Yao
    Chen, Hsieh-Ching
    Wu, Ching-Yi
    Lin, Keh-Chung
    Hsieh, Yu-Wei
    Shen, I-Hsuan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2019, 55 (06) : 754 - 760
  • [23] Functional Status Score for the ICU: An International Clinimetric Analysis of Validity, Responsiveness, and Minimal Important Difference
    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.
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2016, 44 (12) : E1155 - E1164
  • [24] Minimal important difference of Berg Balance Scale, performance-oriented mobility assessment and dynamic gait index in chronic stroke survivors
    Sharabiani, Parvaneh Taghavi Azar
    Mehdizadeh, Maryam
    Goudarzi, Sepideh
    Jamali, Shamsi
    Mazhar, Farid Najd
    Heidari, Marzeih
    Alizadeh, Naeeme Haji
    Mohammadi, Faezeh
    Foomani, Amir Sayyar Sabet
    Taghizadeh, Ghorban
    JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, 2024, 33 (11):
  • [25] The minimal clinically-important difference of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire - Mobility Scale in subjects undergoing lower limb prosthetic rehabilitation training
    Franchignoni, Franco
    Ferriero, Giorgio
    Giordano, Andrea
    Monticone, Marco
    Grioni, Giuseppe
    Burger, Helena
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2020, 56 (01) : 82 - 87
  • [26] Minimal clinically important difference: The basics
    Salas Apaza, Julieta Aldana
    Ariel Franco, Juan Victor
    Meza, Nicolas
    Madrid, Eva
    Loezar, Cristobal
    Garegnani, Luis
    MEDWAVE, 2021, 21 (03):
  • [27] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: Response
    Franceschini, Marco
    Boffa, Angelo
    Pignotti, Elettra
    Andriolo, Luca
    Zaffagnini, Stefano
    Filardo, Giuseppe
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2023, 51 (13): : NP52 - NP52
  • [28] The validity, reliability, responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the de Morton mobility index in rehabilitation
    New, Peter Wayne
    Scroggie, Grant David
    Williams, Cylie Michelle
    DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2017, 39 (10) : 1039 - 1043
  • [29] Low repeatability of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale and the need to redefine the minimal clinically important difference
    Hunasikatti, Mahadevappa
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SLEEP MEDICINE, 2020, 16 (10): : 1827 - 1827
  • [30] Minimal Detectable Change and Clinically Important Difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in Stroke Patients
    Lin, Keh-chung
    Fu, Tiffany
    Wu, Ching-yi
    Wang, Yen-ho
    Liu, Jung-sen
    Hsieh, Ching-ju
    Lin, Shih-fan
    NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR, 2010, 24 (05) : 486 - 492