Determining the Minimal Important Difference for the Wound-QoL Questionnaire

References

• Herber OR, Schnepp W, Rieger MA. A systematic review on the impact of leg ulceration on patients’ quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:1–12. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augustin M, Herberger K, Rustenbach SJ, Schäfer I, Zschocke I, Blome C. Quality of life evaluation in wounds: validation of the Freiburg Life Quality Assessment-wound module, a disease-specific instrument. Int Wound J. 2010;7:493–501. doi:10.1111/j.1742-481X.2010.00732.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herberger K, Rustenbach SJ, Haartje O, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction of patients with leg ulcers—results of a community-based study. VASA. 2011;40:131–138. doi:10.1024/0301-1526/a000083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augustin M, Mayer A, Goepel LM, Baade K, Heyer K, Herberger K. Cumulative Life Course Impairment (CLCI): a new concept to characterize persistent patient burden in chronic wounds. Wound Med. 2013;1:2–6. doi:10.1016/j.wndm.2013.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Augustin M, Langenbruch AK, Herberger K, Baade K, Goepel L, Blome C. Quality of life measurement in chronic wounds and inflammatory skin diseases: definitions, standards and instruments. Wound Med. 2014;5:29–38. doi:10.1016/j.wndm.2014.04.008
   Google Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419–423. doi:10.2165/00019053-200018050-00001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blome C, Baade K, Debus ES, Price P, Augustin M. The “Wound-QoL”: a short questionnaire measuring quality of life in patients with chronic wounds based on three established disease-specific instruments. Wound Repair Regen. 2014;22:504–514. doi:10.1111/wrr.12193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augustin M, Conde Montero E, Zander N, et al. Validity and feasibility of the Wound-QoL questionnaire on health-related quality of life in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25:852–857. doi:10.1111/wrr.12583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer R, Augustin M, Hampel-Kalthoff C, Blome C. The Wound-QoL questionnaire on quality of life in chronic wounds is highly reliable. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25:730–732. doi:10.1111/wrr.12578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augustin M, Baade K, Herberger K, et al. Use of the WoundQoL instrument in routine practice: feasibility, validity and testing of an implementation tool. Wound Med. 2014;4:4–8. doi:10.1016/j.wndm.2014.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Fagerdahl AM, Bergstrom G. Translation and validation of a wound-specific, quality-of-life instrument (the Wound-QoL) in a Swedish population. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2018;64:40–46. doi:10.25270/owm.2018.5.4046
   Google Scholar
• Gamus A, Kaufman H, Keren E, Brandin G, Peles D, Chodick G. Validation of “Wound QoL” Hebrew version disease-specific questionnaire for patients with lower extremity ulcerations. Int Wound J. 2018;15:600–604. doi:10.1111/iwj.12903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayadevappa R, Cook R, Chhatre S. Minimal important difference to infer changes in health-related quality of life-a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:188–198. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA. 2014;312:1342–1343. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.13128
   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;41:582–592. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swartz RJ, Schwartz C, Basch E, et al. The king’s foot of patient-reported outcomes: current practices and new developments for the measurement of change. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1159–1167. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9863-1
   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;61:102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Heyer K, Herberger K, Protz K, Glaeske G, Augustin M. Epidemiology of chronic wounds in Germany: analysis of statutory health insurance data. Wound Repair Regen. 2016;24(2):434–442. doi:10.1111/wrr.12387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:171–184. doi:10.1586/erp.11.9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engel L, Beaton DE, Touma Z. Minimal clinically important difference: a review of outcome measure score interpretation. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2018;44:177–188. doi:10.1016/j.rdc.2018.01.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basra MKA, Salek MS, Camilleri L, Sturkey R, Finlay AY. Determining the minimal clinically important difference and responsiveness of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI): further data. Dermatology. 2015;230:27–33. doi:10.1159/000365390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alma HJ, de Jong C, Jelusic D, et al. Assessing health status over time: impact of recall period and anchor question on the minimal clinically important difference of copd health status tools. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:130. doi:10.1186/s12955-018-0950-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staunton H, Willgoss T, Nelsen L, et al. An overview of using qualitative techniques to explore and define estimates of clinically important change on clinical outcome assessments. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019;3(16). doi:10.1186/s41687-019-0100-y
   Google Scholar
• Hagg O, Fritzell P, Oden A, Nordwall A. Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine. 2002;27:1213–1222. doi:10.1097/00007632-200206010-00014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thissen D, Liu Y, Magnus B, et al. Estimating minimally important difference (MID) in PROMIS pediatric measures using the scale-judgment method. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:13–23. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1058-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer R, Hampel-Kalthoff C, Kalthoff B, et al. Differences between patient- and proxy-reported HRQoL using the Wound-QoL. Wound Repair Regen. 2018;26:293–296. doi:10.1111/wrr.12662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agbi KE, Carvalho M, Phan H, Tuma C. Case report: diabetic foot ulcer infection treated with topical compounded medications. Int J Pharm Compd. 2017;21:22–27.
   Google Scholar
• Gutknecht M, Walzer S, Heyer K, et al. Costs of compression therapy in venous leg ulcers in Germany and modelling of the economic effects of regional disparities in health care. Value Health. 2015;18:A372. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar