Estimation of minimal clinically important difference for 6‐minute walking distance in patients with acute stroke using anchor‐based methods and credibility instruments

Author:

Hayashi Shota12ORCID,Takeda Ren3,Miyata Kazuhiro4,Iizuka Takamitsu5,Igarashi Tatsuya6,Usuda Shigeru7

Affiliation:

1. Department of Physical Therapy Faculty of Rehabilitation Gunma Paz University Takasaki Japan

2. Department of Health Science Gunma Paz University Graduate School of Health Sciences Takasaki Japan

3. Day Care Specialized in Stroke Rehabilitation With Reha Maebashi Japan

4. Department of Physical Therapy Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences Inashiki Japan

5. Home‐visit Nursing Station COCO‐LO Maebashi COCO‐LO Co., Ltd Maebashi Japan

6. Department of Physical Therapy Faculty of Health Science Technology Bunkyo Gakuin University Fujimino Saitama Japan

7. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences Gunma University Graduate School of Health Sciences Maebashi Japan

Abstract

AbstractBackground and PurposeStroke impairs a patient's ability to walk. In patients with acute stroke, a 6‐min walking distance (6MWD) is recommended to assess walking function. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation; however, the MCID for 6MWD has not been adequately validated. This study aimed to estimate the MCID of 6MWD, a measure of walking endurance, in patients with acute stroke using anchor‐based methods.MethodsBased on the change in 6MWD from baseline to the follow‐up measurement 2 weeks later, the MCID was estimated using anchor‐based methods (receiver operator operating characteristic curves, predictive and adjustment models) with a patient‐ and therapist‐rated global rating of change scale (p‐GRC, t‐GRC) as external anchors. The accuracy of “meaningful change” was estimated from the area under the curve. Using MCID's credibility instruments, the credibility of each anchor was evaluated. Using the credibility instrument, high credibility was defined as satisfying 3/5 of the Core criteria and 6/9 of all criteria.ResultsThe analysis included 58 patients. The MCID for each anchor was 78.7–100.0 m for p‐GRC, and 95.2–99.5 m for t‐GRC. The p‐GRC demonstrated excellent accuracy (area under the curve >0.8). With p‐GRC as anchors, over 50% of patients showed improvement. The p‐GRC satisfied the core criterion of 3/5 and all criteria of 6/9 on the reliability instrument. The t‐GRC demonstrated low reliability and satisfied the core criterion of 2/5 and all criteria of 3/9.DiscussionSince the percentage of improved groups exceeded 50%, the adjusted model was useful in the anchor‐based method. Therapists may not accurately capture patient fatigue and subjective symptoms, potentially affecting the correlation between the 6MWD change score and the t‐GRC and, consequently, the reliability instrument. The p‐GRC showed high accuracy and reliability; therefore, the MCID was estimated to be 78.7 m.

Funder

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

Publisher

Wiley

Reference38 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3