Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) has been used extensively to assess the impact of fatigue on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in multiple sclerosis (MS). The objective of this study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) of the FIS to facilitate the interpretation of the scale in patients with MS.
Data came from a cross-sectional study of 184 patients with MS. Anchor-based estimates of the MID were evaluated using patients’ ratings of their own health and a clinical rating of MS severity. Using the proportional odds model, estimates of the MID were evaluated by finding FIS score differences that corresponded to a 50% increase in the odds of poorer health. Convergence between distribution- and anchor-based estimates was assessed.
Nineteen items met the selection criteria for anchors. Triangulation of the anchor- and distribution-based approaches indicated that the MID of the FIS ranged between 10 and 20 points, approximately.
A common metric of meaningful difference of FIS was defined across anchors measuring a broad range of HRQOL domains. The MID estimates in the current study can be used for sample size calculation in the planning of future studies and to aid researchers and clinicians in interpreting FIS score differences in patients with MS.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Alves, G., Wentzel-Larsen, T., & Larsen, J. P. (2004). Is fatigue an independent and persistent symptom in patients with Parkinson disease? Neurology, 63, 1908–1911. PubMed
Krupp, L. B., Alvarez, L. A., LaRocca, N. G., & Scheinberg, L. C. (1988). Fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Archives of Neurology, 45, 435–437. PubMed
Multiple Sclerosis Council for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Fatigue and Multiple Sclerosis: Evidence-based Management Strategies for Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis. 1998. Washington DC, Paralyzed Veterans of America. Ref Type: Report.
Cella D., Revicki D., & Sloan J. (2006). Interpreting PRO Results: Methods for Determining Responsiveness and MID. Are patient reported outcomes ready for prime time? The ISOQOL workshop on PROs and the FDA draft guidance for industry. Patient reported outcomes and the global regulatory environment. 10-10-2006. Ref Type: Hearing.
Cella D., Revicki D., & Sloan J. (2006). Interpreting PRO Results: Methods for Determining Responsiveness and MID–presented at ISOQOL 2006. Are patient reported outcomes ready for prime time? The ISOQOL workshop on PROs and the FDA draft guidance for industry. Patient reported outcomes and the global regulatory environment. 10-10-2006. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding.
Fisk, J. D., Ritvo, P. G., Ross, L., Haase, D. A., Marrie, T. J., & Schlech, W. F. (1994). Measuring the functional impact of fatigue: Initial validation of the fatigue impact scale. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 18(Suppl 1), S79–S83. PubMed
Fisk, J. D., Pontefract, A., Ritvo, P. G., Archibald, C. J., & Murray, T. J. (1994). The impact of fatigue on patients with multiple sclerosis. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 21, 9–14. PubMed
Theander, K., Cliffordson, C., Torstensson, O., Jakobsson, P., & Unosson, M. (2007). Fatigue Impact Scale: Its validation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 12, 470–484. CrossRef
Fisk, J. D., Brown, M. G., Sketris, I. S., Metz, L. M., Murray, T. J., & Stadnyk, K. J. (2005). A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 76, 58–63. CrossRef
Ware, J. E., Jr., Snow, K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center.
Pfennings, L., Cohen, L., van der, P. H., Polman, C., & Lankhorst, G. (1998). Reliability of two measures of health-related quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 111–114. PubMed
Mathiowetz, V. G., Matuska, K. M., Finlayson, M. L., Luo, P., & Chen, H. Y. (2007). One-year follow-up to a randomized controlled trial of an energy conservation course for persons with multiple sclerosis. International Journal of Rehabilitative Research, 30, 305–313. CrossRef
Rammohan, K. W., Rosenberg, J. H., Lynn, D. J., Blumenfeld, A. M., Pollak, C. P., & Nagaraja, H. N. (2002). Efficacy and safety of modafinil (Provigil) for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: A two centre phase 2 study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 72, 179–183. CrossRef
Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 Physical and mental summary scales: A user’s manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute.
(1990) EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 16, 199–208.
Parkin, D., Jacoby, A., Mcnamee, P., Miller, P., Thomas, S., & Bates, D. (2000). Treatment of multiple sclerosis with Interferon Beta: An appraisal of cost-effectiveness and quality of life. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 68, 144–149. CrossRef
Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33, 1444–1452. PubMed
Lazek, M. D., Howeison, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neurological assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brandt, R. (1990). Assessing the proportionality on the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics, 46, 1171–1178. CrossRef
Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. CrossRef
Box, G., & Tidwell, P. (1962). Transformations of the independent variables. Technometrics, 4, 531–550. CrossRef
McCullagh, P. (1980). Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 42, 109–142.
Steiner, D. L. N. G. R. (1989). Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potempa, K. M. (1993). Chronic fatigue. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 11, 57–76. PubMed
Arbizu-Urdiain, T., Martinez-Yelamos, A., & Casado, R. V. (2002). Impairment, disability and handicap scales in multiple sclerosis. Revista De Neurologia, 35, 1081–1093. PubMed
Hohol, M. J., Orav, E. J., & Weiner, H. L. (1995). Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: A simple approach to evaluate disease progression. Neurology, 45(2), 251–255. PubMed
Cella, D., Eton, D. T., Lai, J. S., Peterman, A. H., & Merkel, D. E. (2002). Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 24, 547–561. CrossRefPubMed
Eton, D. T., Cella, D., Yost, K. J., Yount, S. E., Peterman, A. H., Neuberg, D. S., et al. (2004). A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 898–910. CrossRefPubMed
Bjorner, J. B., Wallenstein, G. V., Martin, M. C., Lin, P., Blaisdell-Gross, B., Tak, P. C., et al. (2007). Interpreting score differences in the SF-36 Vitality scale: using clinical conditions and functional outcomes to define the minimally important difference. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 23, 731–739. CrossRefPubMed
- A novel approach to estimate the minimally important difference for the fatigue impact scale in multiple sclerosis patients
Gene V. Wallenstein
John D. Fisk
- Springer Netherlands