Brian A Young, David M Boland, Shane L Koppenhaver, Emilio J Puentedura, Joshua A Cleland
{"title":"应用可信度分析由患者决定颈部残疾指数的重要变化:一项探索性研究","authors":"Brian A Young, David M Boland, Shane L Koppenhaver, Emilio J Puentedura, Joshua A Cleland","doi":"10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.08.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purposes of this study were to preliminarily report patient-identified change for the neck disability index (NDI) as either important or not important with time between follow-up of approximately 7 to 10 days and assess the credibility of the preliminary results with the use of a recently established credibility instrument.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a secondary analysis from a primary randomized clinical trial assessing short-term physical therapist care for individuals with mechanical neck pain. Neck disability index scores and participant-reported importance of global rating of change scores from 42 participants were analyzed from a randomized clinical trial assessing short-term responses to thoracic manipulation and dry needling for neck pain. Patient-important change was computed using receiver operating characteristic curves, and statistical error of the measurement was calculated using (SD × [1 - r]<sup>1/2</sup>) × 1.96 to assess measurement error at the 95% CI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-six participants rated global rating of change as important, and 6 rated it as not important. Patient-important change was calculated at 3.5 NDI points on a 0 to 50 NDI scoring scale. This value exceeded the statistical error, which was calculated at 2.16 NDI points. The credibility analysis revealed that 4 of 5 criteria showed strong credibility for the patient-important change estimate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using patient-determined importance to dichotomize improvement may yield a lower threshold than current researcher-defined methods. Clinically, these results may be more responsive to patient-centric change than using previously reported minimal clinically important difference data.</p>","PeriodicalId":16132,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-Determined Important Change for the Neck Disability Index With Application of Credibility Analysis: An Exploratory Study.\",\"authors\":\"Brian A Young, David M Boland, Shane L Koppenhaver, Emilio J Puentedura, Joshua A Cleland\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.08.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purposes of this study were to preliminarily report patient-identified change for the neck disability index (NDI) as either important or not important with time between follow-up of approximately 7 to 10 days and assess the credibility of the preliminary results with the use of a recently established credibility instrument.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a secondary analysis from a primary randomized clinical trial assessing short-term physical therapist care for individuals with mechanical neck pain. Neck disability index scores and participant-reported importance of global rating of change scores from 42 participants were analyzed from a randomized clinical trial assessing short-term responses to thoracic manipulation and dry needling for neck pain. Patient-important change was computed using receiver operating characteristic curves, and statistical error of the measurement was calculated using (SD × [1 - r]<sup>1/2</sup>) × 1.96 to assess measurement error at the 95% CI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-six participants rated global rating of change as important, and 6 rated it as not important. Patient-important change was calculated at 3.5 NDI points on a 0 to 50 NDI scoring scale. This value exceeded the statistical error, which was calculated at 2.16 NDI points. The credibility analysis revealed that 4 of 5 criteria showed strong credibility for the patient-important change estimate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using patient-determined importance to dichotomize improvement may yield a lower threshold than current researcher-defined methods. Clinically, these results may be more responsive to patient-centric change than using previously reported minimal clinically important difference data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.08.016\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2024.08.016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patient-Determined Important Change for the Neck Disability Index With Application of Credibility Analysis: An Exploratory Study.
Objective: The purposes of this study were to preliminarily report patient-identified change for the neck disability index (NDI) as either important or not important with time between follow-up of approximately 7 to 10 days and assess the credibility of the preliminary results with the use of a recently established credibility instrument.
Methods: This study was a secondary analysis from a primary randomized clinical trial assessing short-term physical therapist care for individuals with mechanical neck pain. Neck disability index scores and participant-reported importance of global rating of change scores from 42 participants were analyzed from a randomized clinical trial assessing short-term responses to thoracic manipulation and dry needling for neck pain. Patient-important change was computed using receiver operating characteristic curves, and statistical error of the measurement was calculated using (SD × [1 - r]1/2) × 1.96 to assess measurement error at the 95% CI.
Results: Thirty-six participants rated global rating of change as important, and 6 rated it as not important. Patient-important change was calculated at 3.5 NDI points on a 0 to 50 NDI scoring scale. This value exceeded the statistical error, which was calculated at 2.16 NDI points. The credibility analysis revealed that 4 of 5 criteria showed strong credibility for the patient-important change estimate.
Conclusion: Using patient-determined importance to dichotomize improvement may yield a lower threshold than current researcher-defined methods. Clinically, these results may be more responsive to patient-centric change than using previously reported minimal clinically important difference data.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) is an international and interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the advancement of conservative health care principles and practices. The JMPT is the premier biomedical publication in the chiropractic profession and publishes peer reviewed, research articles and the Journal''s editorial board includes leading researchers from around the world.
The Journal publishes original primary research and review articles of the highest quality in relevant topic areas. The JMPT addresses practitioners and researchers needs by adding to their clinical and basic science knowledge and by informing them about relevant issues that influence health care practices.