A unified multi-level model approach to assessing patient responsiveness including; return to normal, minimally important differences and minimal clinically important improvement for patient reported outcome measures

Objective This article reviews and compares four commonly used approaches to assess patient responsiveness with a treatment or therapy (return to normal (RTN), minimal important difference (MID), minimal clinically important improvement (MCII), OMERACT-OARSI [Outcome Measures in Rheumatology—Osteoarthris Reseach Society International] (OO)) and demonstrates how each of the methods can be formulated in a multilevel modelling (MLM) framework. Design Cohort study. Setting A cohort of patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement were recruited from a single UK National Health Service hospital. Population 400 patients from the Arthroplasty Pain Experience cohort study undergoing total hip (n=210) and knee (n=190) replacement who completed the Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain questionnaire prior to surgery and then at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Primary outcomes The primary outcome was defined as a response to treatment following total hip or knee replacement. We compared baseline scores, change scores and proportion of individuals defined as ‘responders’ using traditional and MLM approaches with patient responsiveness. Results Using existing approaches, baseline and change scores are underestimated, and the variance of baseline and change scores overestimated in comparison with MLM approaches. MLM increases the proportion of individuals defined as responding in RTN, MID and OO criteria compared with existing approaches. Using MLM with the MCII criteria reduces the number of individuals identified as responders. Conclusion MLM improves the estimation of the SD of baseline and change scores by explicitly incorporating measurement error into the model and avoiding regression to the mean when making individual predictions. Using refined definitions of responsiveness may lead to a reduction in misclassification when attempting to predict who does and does not respond to an intervention and clarifies the similarities between existing methods.

[1]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Trajectories of Pain and Function after Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: The ADAPT Cohort Study , 2016, PloS one.

[2]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Rest Pain and Movement‐Evoked Pain as Unique Constructs in Hip and Knee Replacements , 2016, Arthritis care & research.

[3]  P. Dieppe,et al.  45-day mortality after 467 779 knee replacements for osteoarthritis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales: an observational study , 2014, The Lancet.

[4]  A. Beswick,et al.  Assessment of Chronic Postsurgical Pain After Knee Replacement: A Systematic Review , 2013, Arthritis care & research.

[5]  P. Dieppe,et al.  90-day mortality after 409 096 total hip replacements for osteoarthritis, from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales: a retrospective analysis , 2013, The Lancet.

[6]  P. Dieppe,et al.  An analysis of time and money spent on investigating painful total knee replacements , 2012 .

[7]  Rachael Gooberman-Hill,et al.  What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients , 2012, BMJ Open.

[8]  A. Blom,et al.  The failure of survivorship. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[9]  M. King A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods , 2011, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[10]  P. Dieppe,et al.  The effect of local anaesthetic wound infiltration on chronic pain after lower limb joint replacement: A protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial , 2011, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[11]  A. Blom,et al.  “It's there and I'm stuck with it”: Patients' experiences of chronic pain following total knee replacement surgery , 2011, Arthritis care & research.

[12]  C. Cooper,et al.  Patient‐reported outcomes one year after primary hip replacement in a European Collaborative Cohort , 2010, Arthritis care & research.

[13]  Daniel S Nagin,et al.  Group-based trajectory modeling in clinical research. , 2010, Annual review of clinical psychology.

[14]  Nilam Ram,et al.  Methods and Measures: Growth mixture modeling: A method for identifying differences in longitudinal change among unobserved groups , 2009, International journal of behavioral development.

[15]  J. Twisk,et al.  Longitudinal tobit regression: a new approach to analyze outcome variables with floor or ceiling effects. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[16]  P. Stratford,et al.  Findings of extensive variation in the types of outcome measures used in hip and knee replacement clinical trials: a systematic review. , 2008, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[17]  R. Hays,et al.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  S. Gabriel,et al.  Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. , 2008, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[19]  T. Kvien,et al.  Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? , 2007, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[20]  Sophia Rabe-Hesketh,et al.  Multilevel and Latent Variable Modeling with Composite Links and Exploded Likelihoods , 2007 .

[21]  A. Boonen,et al.  Evaluation and validation of the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. , 2007, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[22]  Geert Verbeke,et al.  Pairwise Fitting of Mixed Models for the Joint Modeling of Multivariate Longitudinal Profiles , 2006, Biometrics.

[23]  W. Ambrosius,et al.  Exercise, self-efficacy, and mobility performance in overweight and obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis. , 2005, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[24]  Geert Verbeke,et al.  Joint modelling of multivariate longitudinal profiles: pitfalls of the random‐effects approach , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement , 2004, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[26]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state , 2004, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[27]  M. Dougados,et al.  OMERACT-OARSI initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited. , 2004, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[28]  C. Zwingmann,et al.  The ‘smallest real difference’ as a measure of sensitivity to change: a critical analysis , 2003, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[29]  G. Norman,et al.  Interpretation of Changes in Health-related Quality of Life: The Remarkable Universality of Half a Standard Deviation , 2003, Medical care.

[30]  M. Klässbo,et al.  Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome scoreAn extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index , 2003, Scandinavian journal of rheumatology.

[31]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[32]  A. Davis,et al.  The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. , 2001, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[33]  Jonathan A C Sterne,et al.  Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[34]  William J. Browne,et al.  Implementation and performance issues in the Bayesian and likelihood fitting of multilevel models , 2000, Comput. Stat..

[35]  N. Jacobson,et al.  Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application, and alternatives. , 1999, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[36]  H Goldstein,et al.  Multi-level repeated measures growth modelling using extended spline functions. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[37]  M. Kenward,et al.  Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. , 1997, Biometrics.

[38]  N. Bellamy,et al.  Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials--results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. , 1992, The Journal of rheumatology.

[39]  N. Jacobson,et al.  Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. , 1991, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[40]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. , 1988, The Journal of rheumatology.

[41]  L. Kazis,et al.  The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the elderly. The Framingham Osteoarthritis Study. , 1987, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[42]  Huston Gj,et al.  The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. , 1987, The Journal of rheumatology.

[43]  Jorge L. Mendoza,et al.  A method of assessing change in a single subject: An alteration of the RC index , 1986 .

[44]  M. Gardner,et al.  Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. , 1983, British medical journal.

[45]  A. Carr,et al.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[46]  A. Carr,et al.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.