Determining the Minimally Clinically Important Difference for the Disability Rating Scale in Persons With Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury

The Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) is accepted as the primary outcome measure in registrational studies for traumatic brain injury (TBI). The Disability Rating Scale (DRS) is used to assess functional progress from initial acute injury, through rehabilitation and reintegration into the community and life. For these reasons, the DRS is an alternative measure for assessing meaningful global outcomes in chronic TBI. The objective of this study was to determine the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the DRS in chronic TBI, by determining the magnitude of DRS change associated with the MCID for the GOSE of 1 point. This study is a retrospective analysis of the multi-center, prospective, longitudinal, Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Database of persons with outcomes at 1, 2, and 5 years and every 5 years thereafter post-injury. Spearman's correlations for dynamic and static relationships between the DRS and GOSE were significant. For the 1-point MCID for the GOSE, the dynamic MCID estimate for the DRS of a −0.68-point change was calculated as the mean DRS change associated with the difference of the GOSE score between year 1 and year 2 (score range, 3–8), using all persons in the study (n = 11,102), whereas the exploratory static MCID estimate for the DRS of −1.28 points was calculated from the slope of the best-fit line between the DRS and GOSE at year 1 follow-up (score range, 3–8; n = 13,415). The final MCID for the DRS was calculated by using the triangulation method (i.e., the arithmetic mean of the dynamic and exploratory static MCID estimates), which resulted in a −1.0-point change. The significant correlation between the DRS and GOSE has allowed for the establishment of a −1.0-point MCID for the DRS, which supports the use of the DRS as an alternative primary outcome measure for chronic TBI research studies, including clinical trials.

[1]  S. Cramer,et al.  Determining minimally clinically important differences for outcome measures in patients with chronic motor deficits secondary to traumatic brain injury , 2021, Expert review of neurotherapeutics.

[2]  S. Cramer,et al.  Estimating minimal clinically important differences for two scales in patients with chronic traumatic brain injury , 2020, Current medical research and opinion.

[3]  J. Malec,et al.  A Standard Method for Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Rehabilitation Measures. , 2020, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[4]  J. Reed,et al.  Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease , 2019, Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention.

[5]  Brooke E. Magnus,et al.  Diagnosing the GOSE: Structural and Psychometric Properties Using Item Response Theory, a TRACK-TBI Pilot Study. , 2019, Journal of neurotrauma.

[6]  D. NelsonLindsay,et al.  Diagnosing the GOSE: Structural and Psychometric Properties Using Item Response Theory, a TRACK-TBI Pilot Study. , 2019 .

[7]  D. Menon,et al.  A State-of-the-Science Overview of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Acute Management of Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. , 2016, Journal of neurotrauma.

[8]  H. Levin,et al.  The Glasgow Outcome Scale — 40 years of application and refinement , 2016, Nature Reviews Neurology.

[9]  P. Myles,et al.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Three Quality of Recovery Scales , 2016, Anesthesiology.

[10]  J. Giacino,et al.  Structured interview to improve the reliability and psychometric integrity of the Disability Rating Scale. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  J. Giacino,et al.  Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in traumatic brain injury research. , 2010, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  Ramon Diaz-Arrastia,et al.  Measuring Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment Trials: Recommendations From the Traumatic Brain Injury Clinical Trials Network , 2010, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[13]  N. Leidy,et al.  Bridging the Gap: Using Triangulation Methodology to Estimate Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs) , 2005, COPD.

[14]  Sean M. Grady,et al.  Clinical trials in head injury. , 2002, Neurological research.

[15]  R. Zafonte,et al.  Long‐Term Recovery Course After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Comparison of the Functional Independence Measure and Disability Rating Scale , 2001, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[16]  A. Cantagallo,et al.  Assessing traumatic brain injury outcome measures for long-term follow-up of community-based individuals. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[17]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[18]  R H Brook,et al.  A Method for the Detailed Assessment of the Appropriateness of Medical Technologies , 1986, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[19]  M Rappaport,et al.  Disability rating scale for severe head trauma: coma to community. , 1982, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[20]  B. Burnand,et al.  The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual , 2001 .

[21]  D. Cope,et al.  Glasgow Outcome Scale and Disability Rating Scale: comparative usefulness in following recovery in traumatic head injury. , 1985, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.