What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: Cardiac disease (n=217). Intervention: Medical intervention (PTCA, CABG, or pharmacotherapy). Primary outcome: Concordance between serially assessed change with effect size estimates and global ratings of perceived change.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To determine whether statistical effect size estimates of change in health-related functional status consistently align with patients' self-assessed global ratings of clinical change.

November 1, 2001Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

How to validate clinically important change in health‐related functional status. Is the magnitude of the effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating?

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Effect size estimates based on pooled standard deviation were consistent with the magnitude of change indicated by patients' global ratings of perceived change across all scales.

Population

217 patients scheduled for diagnostic examination, assessed before and after medical intervention

Design

Cohort

Authors

BMBerrie MiddelUniversity Medical Center Groningen RSRoy E. StewartUniversity Medical Center Groningen JBJ. BoumaUniversity Medical Center Groningen

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Effect sizes using pooled SD align with patient ratings; supports their interpretation in observational functional status studies but needs prospective validation.

Key Points

To determine whether statistical effect size estimates of change in health-related functional status consistently align with patients' self-assessed global ratings of clinical change.
Evaluated N=217 patients scheduled for diagnostic exams before and after receiving percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, or pharmacotherapy.
Administered the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire extended with MOS-20 items to capture physical and emotional functioning domains.
Compared two effect size formulations—mean change divided by pooled standard deviation and standardized response mean (mean change divided by standard deviation of change)—against global transition ratings.
The effect size metric using pooled standard deviation (mean change/SDpooled) matched patients' subjective categories of meaningful change across all physical and emotional scales.
Discrepancies observed between patient-reported global ratings and the standardized response mean (mean change/SDchange) were empirically small and categorized as trivial discordance.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=217)

Structured PICO

Population

217 patients scheduled for diagnostic examination who were assessed before and after medical intervention (PTCA, CABG, or pharmacotherapy).

Exposure

Medical intervention (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting or pharmaco-therapy)

Outcome

Concordance between the amount of serially assessed change with effect size estimates and global ratings of perceived changepatient reported

Effect size calculated as mean change divided by pooled standard deviation aligns well with patient-perceived magnitude of change in health-related functional status.

Cite This Study

Middel et al. (2001) conducted an observational in Cardiac disease (n=217). Medical intervention (PTCA, CABG, or pharmacotherapy) was evaluated on Concordance between serially assessed change with effect size estimates and global ratings of perceived change. Effect size estimates based on pooled standard deviation were consistent with the magnitude of change indicated by patients' global ratings of perceived change across all scales.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a915f581ff55ae0aec65c47 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00298.x

Topics

Heart failure HFrEF treatment

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Effect sizes using pooled SD align with patient ratings; supports their interpretation in observational functional status studies but needs prospective validation.

How to validate clinically important change in health‐related functional status. Is the magnitude of the effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating?

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Topics

How to validate clinically important change in health‐related functional status. Is the magnitude of the effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating?

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Topics

Also Consider