4.4 Article

Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Change in Overactive Bladder Symptom Score

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 78, 期 4, 页码 768-773

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.06.020

关键词

-

资金

  1. Taiho Pharmaceutical, Co., Ltd.
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21659371, 21659370] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To assess the responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in the Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS), a single score used to quantify overactive bladder symptoms. METHODS The data were derived from a clinical trial of propiverine in patients with overactive bladder. The analysis included participants who completed the OABSS, a bladder diary, and patient-reported outcome measures (urgency and incontinence impact) at baseline and 12 weeks. Responsiveness was assessed with effect sizes, correlations between the OABSS items and bladder diary variables, and comparisons between the score changes and symptom improvement. The MCIC was comprehensively estimated from the discriminating thresholds for minimal symptom improvement, and the receiver operating characteristics curve analyses were used to derive cutoff scores for symptom improvement. RESULTS A total of 282 participants were included in the present analysis. The effect sizes for the OABSS ranged from -0.369 to -1.485, and correlations between the changes in the OABSS items and the corresponding bladder diary variables were moderate to large. A linear tendency was found between the changes in the OABSS and symptom improvement. The mean change for urgency and incontinence impact was -2.59 and -2.49 for no change and -3.67 and -3.78 for minor improvement, respectively. The optimal cutoff score ranged from -4 to -3. Integrating the MCIC analyses, -3 was estimated as the minimal threshold for a meaningful change. CONCLUSION With good responsiveness, the OABSS is a useful tool for assessing the treatment of OAB symptoms. Furthermore, the results of our study suggest that the MCIC of the OABSS is -3. UROLOGY 78: 768-773, 2011. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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