Minimal clinically important difference of the functional independence measure in older adults with hip fracture

References

• Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colón-Emeric CS, et al. Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(6):380–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer SM, Crotty M, Fairhall N, et al. A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magaziner J, Simonsick EM, Kashner TM, et al. Predictors of functional recovery one year following hospital discharge for hip fracture: a prospective study. J Gerontol. 1990;45(3):M101–M107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Magaziner J, Fredman L, Hawkes W, et al. Changes in functional status attributable to hip fracture: a comparison of hip fracture patients to community-dwelling aged. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(11):1023–1031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leibson CL, Tosteson AN, Gabriel SE, et al. Mortality, disability, and nursing home use for persons with and without hip fracture: a population-based study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(10):1644–1650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hershkovitz A, Pulatov I, Brill S, et al. Can hip-fractured elderly patients maintain their rehabilitation achievements after 1 year? Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(4):304–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, et al. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-Sørensen F, et al. The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(6):273–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Institute for Health Information. National rehabilitation reporting system PIA; 2015 Sep. [cited 2021 Oct 15]. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/nrs-pia-en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ministero della Salute. Evoluzione del sistema DRG nazionale. 2007 [cited 2021 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_22_AttivitaMattoni_20_documenti_documento_2_fileAllegato.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, et al. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(5):531–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharrack B, Hughes RA, Soudain S, et al. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 1999;122(1):141–159.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, et al. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology. 2001;57(4):639–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Küçükdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, et al. Adaptation of the functional independence measure for use in Turkey. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15(3):311–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, et al. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(12):1226–1232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, et al. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item barthel index, and 10 item barthel index in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73(2):188–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beninato M, Gill-Body KM, Salles S, et al. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(1):32–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rai SK, Yazdany J, Fortin PR, et al. Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important differences in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17(1):143.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A, Qasim A, et al. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study. BMJ. 2020;369:m1714.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(4):371–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):28–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1342–1343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seitz DP, Adunuri N, Gill SS, et al. Prevalence of dementia and cognitive impairment among older adults with hip fractures. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2011;12(8):556–564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesio L, Granger CV, Perucca L, et al. The FIM instrument in the United States and Italy: a comparative study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(3):168–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Morton NA, Harding KE, Taylor NF, et al. Validity of the de morton mobility index (DEMMI) for measuring the mobility of patients with hip fracture during rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(4):325–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, et al. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired: reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther. 1984;64(1):35–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Darzins SW, Imms C, Shields N, et al. Responsiveness, construct and criterion validity of the personal care-participation assessment and resource tool (PC-PART). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houlden H, Edwards M, McNeil J, et al. Use of the barthel index and the functional independence measure during early inpatient rehabilitation after single incident brain injury. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(2):153–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Routledge Academic; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–1768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deyo R, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39(11):897–906.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(5):644–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18(5):419–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine. 2000;25(24):3192–3199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541–546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froud R, Abel G. Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally: the forgotten lesson of pythagoras. Theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status. PLOS One. 2014;9(12):e114468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alma H, de Jong C, Tsiligianni I, et al. Clinically relevant differences in COPD health status: systematic review and triangulation. Eur Respir J. 2018;52(3):1800412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malec JF, Ketchum JM. A standard method for determining the minimal clinically important difference for rehabilitation measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(6):1090–1094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baetens T, De Kegel A, Calders P, et al. Prediction of falling among stroke patients in rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(10):876–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang CY, Graham JE, Karmarkar AM, et al. FIM motor scores for classifying community discharge after inpatient rehabilitation for hip fracture. Pm R. 2014;6(6):493–497.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gialanella B, Santoro R, Prometti P, et al. Functional recovery in hip fracture patients: the role of pharmacotherapy. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020;32(1):49–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adunsky A, Fleissig Y, Levenkrohn S, et al. A comparative study of mini-mental test, clock drawing task and cognitive-FIM in evaluating functional outcome of elderly hip fracture patients. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(4):414–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adunsky A, Lusky A, Arad M, et al. A comparative study of rehabilitation outcomes of elderly hip fracture patients: the advantage of a comprehensive orthogeriatric approach. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58(6):542–547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unnanuntana A, Jarusriwanna A, Nepal S. Validity and responsiveness of barthel index for measuring functional recovery after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138(12):1671–1677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristensen MT. Factors affecting functional prognosis of patients with hip fracture. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;47(2):257–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arcolin I, Godi M, Giardini M, et al. Does the type of hip fracture affect functional recovery in elderly patients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation? Injury. 2021;52(8):2373–2378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hershkovitz A, Frenkel Rutenberg T. Are extracapsular and intracapsular hip-fracture patients two distinct rehabilitation subpopulations? Disabil Rehabil. 2021;13:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, et al. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:900–908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, et al. Determining the minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43:1478–1487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;82:128–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heruti RJ, Lusky A, Barell V, et al. Cognitive status at admission: does it affect the rehabilitation outcome of elderly patients with hip fracture? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(4):432–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwecker M, Levenkrohn S, Fleisig Y, et al. Mini-mental state examination, cognitive FIM instrument, and the loewenstein occupational therapy cognitive assessment: relation to functional outcome of stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(3):342–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson AL, Sunnerhagen KS, Grimby G. Scoring alternatives for FIM in neurological disorders applying rasch analysis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2005;111(4):264–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. The FIM® instrument: its background, structure, and usefulness. Buffalo (NY): UDSMR; 2012 [cited 2020 November 04]. Available from: www.udsmr.org/Documents/The_FIM_Instrument_Background_Structure_and_Usefulness.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14(2):109–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, et al. Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):675–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar