4.5 Article

Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 1304-1311

出版社

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.081090

关键词

FIBROMYALGIA; FIBROMYALGIA IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE; CLINICAL TRIAL; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE SEVERITY; PAIN

资金

  1. Pfizer Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) is a disease-specific composite instrument that measures the effect of problems experienced by patients with fibromyalgia (FM). Utilization of the FIQ in measuring, changes due to interventions in FM requires derivation of a clinically meaningful change for that instrument. Analyses were conducted to estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and to propose FIQ severity categories. Methods. Data from 3 similarly designed, 3-month placebo-controlled, clinical treatment trials of pregabalin 300, 450, and 600 mg/day in patients with FM were modeled to estimate the change in the mean FIQ total and stiffness items corresponding to each category on the Patient Global Impression of Change. FIQ severity categories were modeled and determined using established pain severity cutpoints as an anchor. Results. A total of 2228 patients, mean age 49 years, 93% women, with a mean baseline FIQ total score of 62 were treated in the 3 studies. Estimated MCID on a given measure were similar across the studies. In a pooled analysis the estimated MCID (95% confidence interval) was 14% (13; 15) and for FIQ stiffness it was 13% (12; 14). In the severity analysis a FIQ total score from 0 to < 39 was found to represent a mild effect, >= 39 to < 59 a moderate effect, and >= 59 to 100 a severe effect. Conclusion. The analysis indicates that a 14% change in the FIQ total score is clinically relevant, and results of these analyses should enhance the clinical utility of the FIQ in research and practice. (First Release April 15 2009: J Rheumatol 2009:36: 1304-11; doi: 10.3899/jrheum.081090)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据