Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 12/2020

01-12-2020 | Fecal Incontinence | Original Article

The responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation questionnaire

Authors: Rebecca G. Rogers, Carla M. Bann, Matthew D. Barber, Pamela Fairchild, Emily S. Lukacz, Lily Arya, Alayne D. Markland, Nazema Y. Siddiqui, Vivian W. Sung

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 12/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We describe the responsiveness and minimally important difference (MID) of the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation (ABLE) questionnaire.

Methods

Women with bowel leakage completed ABLE, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, Colo-Rectal Anal Distress Inventory, and Vaizey questionnaires pretreatment and again at 24 weeks post-treatment. Change scores were correlated between questionnaires. Student’s t tests compared ABLE change scores for improved versus not improved based on other measures. The MID was determined by anchor- and distribution-based approaches.

Results

In 266 women, the mean age was 63.75 (SD = 11.14) and 79% were white. Mean baseline ABLE scores were 2.32 ± 0.56 (possible range 1–5) with a reduction of 0.62 (SD = 0.79) by 24 weeks. ABLE change scores correlated with related measures change scores (r = 0.24 to 0.53) and differed between women who improved and did not improve (all p < 0.001). Standardized response means for participants who improved were large ranging from −0.89 to −1.12. Distribution-based methods suggest a MID of −0.19 based on the criterion of one SEM and −0.28 based on half a standard deviation. Anchor-based MIDs ranged from −0.10 to −0.45. We recommend a MID of −0.20.

Conclusions

The ABLE questionnaire is responsive to change, with a suggested MID of −0.20.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ng KS, Sivakumaran Y, Nassar N, Gladman MA. Fecal incontinence: community prevalence and associated factors—a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(12):1194–209.CrossRef Ng KS, Sivakumaran Y, Nassar N, Gladman MA. Fecal incontinence: community prevalence and associated factors—a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(12):1194–209.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Meyer I, Richter HE. Impact of fecal incontinence and its treatment on quality of life in women. Womens Health (Lond, Engl). 2015;11(2):225–38.CrossRef Meyer I, Richter HE. Impact of fecal incontinence and its treatment on quality of life in women. Womens Health (Lond, Engl). 2015;11(2):225–38.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.CrossRef Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Rogers RG, Sung VW, Lukacz ES, Fairchild P, Arya LA, Barber MD et al for the PFDN Network. Accidental bowel leakage evaluation (ABLE): a new patient-centered validated measure of accidental bowel leakage symptoms in women. Dis Colon Rec 2019;63(5):668–77. Rogers RG, Sung VW, Lukacz ES, Fairchild P, Arya LA, Barber MD et al for the PFDN Network. Accidental bowel leakage evaluation (ABLE): a new patient-centered validated measure of accidental bowel leakage symptoms in women. Dis Colon Rec 2019;63(5):668–77.
5.
go back to reference Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395–407.CrossRef Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395–407.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Jelovsek EJ, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, Barber MD, Newman DK, Rogers RG, et al. Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(9):698–710.CrossRef Jelovsek EJ, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, Barber MD, Newman DK, Rogers RG, et al. Controlling faecal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(9):698–710.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Jelovsek EJ, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, et al. Controlling anal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide (CAPABLe) trial: design and methods. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;44:164–74.CrossRef Jelovsek EJ, Markland AD, Whitehead WE, et al. Controlling anal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide (CAPABLe) trial: design and methods. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;44:164–74.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Sung V, Rogers RG, Bann CM, Arya L, Barber MD, Lowder J, et al. Symptom outcomes important to women with anal incontinence: a conceptual framework. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1023–30.CrossRef Sung V, Rogers RG, Bann CM, Arya L, Barber MD, Lowder J, et al. Symptom outcomes important to women with anal incontinence: a conceptual framework. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1023–30.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44(1):77–80.CrossRef Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44(1):77–80.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20) and PFIQ-7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.CrossRef Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20) and PFIQ-7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Wei JT, Dunn R, Nygaard I, Burgio K, Lukacz ES, Markland A. Development and validation of a quantitative measure of adaptive behaviors in women with pelvic floor disorders. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(4):232–7.PubMedPubMedCentral Wei JT, Dunn R, Nygaard I, Burgio K, Lukacz ES, Markland A. Development and validation of a quantitative measure of adaptive behaviors in women with pelvic floor disorders. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(4):232–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Jelovsek JE, Chen Z, Markland AD, Brubaker L, Dyer KY, Meikle S, et al. Minimum important differences for scales assessing symptoms severity and quality of life in participants with fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(6):342–8.CrossRef Jelovsek JE, Chen Z, Markland AD, Brubaker L, Dyer KY, Meikle S, et al. Minimum important differences for scales assessing symptoms severity and quality of life in participants with fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(6):342–8.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.CrossRef Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–92.PubMed Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–92.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Rejas J, Pardo A, Ruiz MA. Standard error of measurement as a valid alternative to minimally important difference for evaluating the magnitude of changes in patient-reported outcomes measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):350–6.CrossRef Rejas J, Pardo A, Ruiz MA. Standard error of measurement as a valid alternative to minimally important difference for evaluating the magnitude of changes in patient-reported outcomes measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):350–6.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference McLeod LD, Coon CD, Martin SA, Fehnel SE, Hays RD. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):163–9.CrossRef McLeod LD, Coon CD, Martin SA, Fehnel SE, Hays RD. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):163–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation questionnaire
Authors
Rebecca G. Rogers
Carla M. Bann
Matthew D. Barber
Pamela Fairchild
Emily S. Lukacz
Lily Arya
Alayne D. Markland
Nazema Y. Siddiqui
Vivian W. Sung
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 12/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04367-5

Other articles of this Issue 12/2020

International Urogynecology Journal 12/2020 Go to the issue