alexa Assessing the clinical significance of change scores recorded on subjective outcome measures. 1.96, appropriately identified clinical improvement in back patients but not in neck patients. An individual ES of approximately 0.5 had the highest sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing back and neck patients who had undergone clinically significant improvement from those who had not. In terms of raw score changes, percentage BQ change scores [(raw change score/baseline score) x 100] of 47\% and 34\% were identified as having the highest sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing clinically significant improvement from nonimprovement in back and neck patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides a methodological framework for identifying clinically significant change in patients. This approach has important implications in providing clinically relevant information about the effect of a treatment intervention in an individual patient."/>
Psychiatry

Psychiatry

Abnormal and Behavioural Psychology

Author(s): Hurst H, Bolton J

Abstract Share this page

Abstract BACKGROUND: To date, clinical trials have relied almost exclusively on the statistical significance of changes in scores from outcome measures in interpreting the effectiveness of treatment interventions. It is becoming increasingly important, however, to determine the clinical rather than statistical significance of these change scores. OBJECTIVE: To determine cutoff values for change scores that distinguish patients who have clinically improved from those who have not. METHOD: Data were obtained from 165 back and 100 neck patients undergoing chiropractic treatment. Patients completed the Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQ) before treatment and the BQ and Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale after treatment. Three statistical methods were applied to individual change scores on the BQ. These were (1) the Reliable Change Index (RCI); (2) the effect size (ES); and (3) the raw and percentage change scores. The PGIC scale was used as the "gold standard" of clinically significant change. RESULTS: The RCI, using the cutoff value of >1.96, appropriately identified clinical improvement in back patients but not in neck patients. An individual ES of approximately 0.5 had the highest sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing back and neck patients who had undergone clinically significant improvement from those who had not. In terms of raw score changes, percentage BQ change scores [(raw change score/baseline score) x 100] of 47\% and 34\% were identified as having the highest sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing clinically significant improvement from nonimprovement in back and neck patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides a methodological framework for identifying clinically significant change in patients. This approach has important implications in providing clinically relevant information about the effect of a treatment intervention in an individual patient. This article was published in J Manipulative Physiol Ther and referenced in Abnormal and Behavioural Psychology

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords