Minimal and robust clinically important difference of three fatigue measures in chronic stroke survivors

References

• Paciaroni M, Acciarresi M. Poststroke fatigue. Stroke. 2019;50(7):1927–1933. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.023552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eilertsen G, Ormstad H, Kirkevold M. Experiences of poststroke fatigue: qualitative meta-synthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(3):514–525. doi:10.1111/jan.12002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbour V, Mead G. Fatigue after stroke: The patient’s perspective. Stroke Res Treat. 2012;2012:863031. doi:10.1155/2012/863031.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Doncker W, Dantzer R, Ormstad H, Kuppuswamy A. Mechanisms of poststroke fatigue. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018;89(3):287–293. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2017-316007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadarajah M, Goh H-T. Post-stroke fatigue: a review on prevalence, correlates, measurement, and management. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2015;22(3):208–220. doi:10.1179/1074935714Z.0000000015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zedlitz A, Fasotti L, Geurts. Post-stroke fatigue: a treatment protocol that is being evaluated. Clin Rehabil. 2011;25(6):487–500. doi:10.1177/0269215510391285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Rodríguez E, Miró J. The assessment of fatigue in children with chronic pain. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2015;31(2):75–82. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming TB, Packer M, Kramer SF, English C. The prevalence of fatigue after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Stroke. 2016;11(9):968–977. doi:10.1177/1747493016669861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead G, Lynch J, Greig C, Young A, Lewis S, Sharpe M. Evaluation of fatigue scales in stroke patients. Stroke. 2007;38(7):2090–2095. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.478941.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, et al. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):1–5. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–415. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
   PubMedGoogle 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. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groff AR, Malec J, Braunling-mcmorrow D. Effectiveness of post-hospital intensive residential rehabilitation after acquired brain injury: outcomes of 256 program completers compared to participants in a residential supported living program. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(1):194–201. doi:10.1089/neu.2018.5944.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malec JF, Kean J, Monahan PO. The minimal clinically important difference for the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017;32(4):E47–E54. doi:10.1097/HTR.0000000000000268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly JDW, Schuler T. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541–546. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluger BM, Garimella S, Garvan C. Minimal clinically important difference of the modified fatigue impact scale in parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2017;43:101–104. doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.07.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tombaugh TN, McIntyre NJ. The mini‐mental state examination: a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40(9):922–935. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1992.tb01992.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9768):823–836. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billinger SA, Arena R, Bernhardt J, et al. Physical activity and exercise recommendations for stroke survivors: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American heart association/American stroke association. Stroke. 2014;45(8):2532–2553. doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox D, Ludlam S, Mason L, Wagner S, Sharpe M. Manual for Therapists Adaptive Pacing Therapy (APT) for CFS/ME. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Michielsen HJ, De Vries J, Van Heck GL. Psychometric qualities of a brief self-rated fatigue measure: The fatigue assessment scale. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54(4):345–352. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00392-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming TB, Mead G. Classifying post-stroke fatigue: optimal cut-off on the Fatigue Assessment Scale. J Psychosom Res. 2017;103:147–149. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.10.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JJE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–483. doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown LF, Kroenke K, Theobald DE, Wu J. Comparison of SF-36 vitality scale and fatigue symptom inventory in assessing cancer-related fatigue. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2011;19(8):1255–1259. doi:10.1007/s00520-011-1148-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donovan KA, Jacobsen PB, Small BJ, Munster PN, Andrykowski M. Identifying clinically meaningful fatigue with the fatigue symptom inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008;36(5):480–487. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.11.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Laubscher S, Burns R. Validation of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke. 1996;27(10):1812–1816. doi:10.1161/01.STR.27.10.1812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terry PC, Lane AM, Fogarty GJ. Construct validity of the profile of mood states—adolescents for use with adults. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2003;4(2):125–139. doi:10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00035-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson CD, Beethe AZ, Eagle SR, et al. Profiles of mood state fatigue scale is responsive to fatiguing protocol but shows no relationship to perceived or performance decrements. Transl Sports Med. 2019;2(3):153–160. doi:10.1002/tsm2.65.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh Y-W, Wang C-H, S-c W, Chen P-C, Sheu C-F, Hsieh C-L. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21(3):233–238. doi:10.1177/1545968306294729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and interpretation. Lancet Oncol. 2000;1:193.
   Google Scholar
• Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, Ketchersid J, Calfee RP. Minimal clinically important differences of three patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(4):641–649. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walenkamp MM, de Muinck Keizer R-J, Goslings JC, Vos LM, Rosenwasser MP, Schep NW. The minimum clinically important difference of the patient-rated wrist evaluation score for patients with distal radius fractures. Clin Orthop Relat.Res. 2015;473(10):3235–3241. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4376-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459–468. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajian-Tilaki K. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation. Caspian J Intern Med. 2013;4:627.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hauser RA, Auinger P. Determination of minimal clinically important change in early and advanced Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders. 2011;26(5):813–818. doi:10.1002/mds.23638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Eijsden HM, van de PIG, Visser-Meily JM, Kwakkel G. Poststroke fatigue: who is at risk for an increase in fatigue? Stroke Res Treat. 2012;2012:863978. doi:10.1155/2012/863978.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Unal I. Defining an optimal cut-point value in ROC analysis: an alternative approach. Comput Math Methods Med. 2017;2017:1–14. doi:10.1155/2017/3762651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins NJ, Schisterman EF. The inconsistency of “optimal” cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(7):670–675. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malec JF, Hammond FM. Minimal clinically important difference for the Rasch neuropsychiatric inventory irritability and aggression scale for traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(3):603–6. e1. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.06.038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maringwa J, Quinten C, King M, et al. Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(9):2107–2112. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(1):131–142. doi:10.1007/s11136-006-9109-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayadevappa R, Malkowicz SB, Wittink M, Wein AJ, Chhatre S. Comparison of distribution‐and anchor‐based approaches to infer changes in health‐related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(5):1902–1925. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01395.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ousmen A, Touraine C, Deliu N, et al. Distribution-and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):1–12. doi:10.1186/s12955-018-1055-z.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pandian S, Arya KN, Kumar D. Minimal clinically important difference of the lower-extremity Fugl–Meyer assessment in chronic-stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016;23(4):233–239. doi:10.1179/1945511915Y.0000000003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouelhi Y, Jouve E, Castelli C, Gentile SJH. How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:1–17. doi:10.1186/s12955-020-01344-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik D, Ö Ç, Ö K. Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used hip-, knee-, foot-, and ankle-specific questionnaires: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:44–57. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rendas-Baum R, Yang M, Cattelin F, Wallenstein GV, Fisk JD. A novel approach to estimate the minimally important difference for the fatigue impact scale in multiple sclerosis patients. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(9):1349–1358. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9704-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pouchot J, Kherani RB, Brant R, et al. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference for seven fatigue measures in rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(7):705–713. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.08.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fulk GD, YJp H. Minimal clinically important difference of the 6-minute walk test in people with stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2018;42(4):235–240. doi:10.1097/NPT.0000000000000236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storm FA, Petrarca M, Beretta E, et al. Minimum clinically important difference of gross motor function and gait endurance in children with motor impairment: a comparison of distribution-based approaches. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020(2):1–9. doi:10.1155/2020/2794036.
   Google Scholar
• Maredupaka S, Meshram P, Chatte M, Kim WH, Kim TK. Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty: review of terminologies, methods and proposed values. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2020;32(1):1–12. doi:10.1186/s43019-020-00038-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burke L, Stifano T, Dawisha S. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar