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
  • [31] Minimal clinically important difference of the King's Parkinson's disease Pain Scale
    Taghizadeh, Ghorban
    Fereshtehnejad, Seyed-Mohammad
    Goudarzi, Sepideh
    Jamali, Shamsi
    Mehdizadeh, Maryam
    DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2023, 45 (10) : 1680 - 1683
  • [32] Minimal clinically important difference of the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale in Parkinson's disease
    Kluger, Benzi M.
    Garimella, Sanjana
    Garvan, Cynthia
    PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS, 2017, 43 : 101 - 104
  • [33] The minimal important difference: Who's to say what is important!
    Wright, JG
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1996, 49 (11) : 1221 - 1222
  • [34] The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference
    de Vet, Henrica C. W.
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 63 (07) : 804 - 805
  • [35] Responsiveness, minimal important difference, minimal relevant difference, and optimal number of patients for a study
    Comins, Jonathan David
    Brodersen, John
    Christensen, Karl Bang
    Jensen, Jonas
    Hansen, Christian Fugl
    Krogsgaard, Michael R.
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS, 2021, 31 (06) : 1239 - 1248
  • [36] Foundations of the minimal clinically important difference for imaging
    Lassere, MND
    van der Heijde, D
    Johnson, KR
    JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2001, 28 (04) : 890 - 891
  • [37] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: Letter to the Editor
    Tenan, Matthew S.
    Boyer, Christopher W.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2023, 51 (13): : NP51 - NP52
  • [38] The importance of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID)
    Malec, James
    BRAIN INJURY, 2017, 31 (6-7) : 739 - 740
  • [39] Minimal clinically important difference module: Introduction
    Wells, GA
    JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2001, 28 (02) : 398 - 399
  • [40] DEFINING A MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN CAMPHOR
    Bunclark, K.
    Abraham, N.
    Ali, S.
    Cannon, J. E.
    Sheares, K.
    Speed, N.
    Taboada, D.
    Toshner, M.
    Pepke-Zaba, J.
    THORAX, 2019, 74 : A155 - A155