Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Neurology
Published in: BMC Neurology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Patient-reported questionnaires in MS rehabilitation: responsiveness and minimal important difference of the multiple sclerosis questionnaire for physiotherapists (MSQPT)

Author: Nico Arie van der Maas

Published in: BMC Neurology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire for Physical Therapists (MSQPT) is a patient-rated outcome questionnaire for evaluating the rehabilitation of persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Responsiveness was evaluated, and minimal important difference (MID) estimates were calculated to provide thresholds for clinical change for four items, three sections and the total score of the MSQPT.

Methods

This multicentre study used a combined distribution- and anchor-based approach with multiple anchors and multiple rating of change questions. Responsiveness was evaluated using effect size, standardized response mean (SRM), modified SRM and relative efficiency. For distribution-based MID estimates, 0.2 and 0.33 standard deviations (SD), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change were used. Triangulation of anchor- and distribution-based MID estimates provided a range of MID values for each of the four items, the three sections and the total score of the MSQPT. The MID values were tested for their sensitivity and specificity for amelioration and deterioration for each of the four items, the three sections and the total score of the MSQPT. The MID values of each item and section and of the total score with the best sensitivity and specificity were selected as thresholds for clinical change.
The outcome measures were the MSQPT, Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire for Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS), rating of change questionnaires, Expanded Disability Status Scale, 6-metre timed walking test, Berg Balance Scale and 6-minute walking test.

Results

The effect size ranged from 0.46 to 1.49. The SRM data showed comparable results. The modified SRM ranged from 0.00 to 0.60. Anchor-based MID estimates were very low and were comparable with SD- and SEM-based estimates. The MSQPT was more responsive than the HAQUAMS in detecting improvement but less responsive in finding deterioration. The best MID estimates of the items, sections and total score, expressed in percentage of their maximum score, were between 5.4% (activity) and 22% (item 10) change for improvement and between 5.7% (total score) and 22% (item 10) change for deterioration.

Conclusions

The MSQPT is a responsive questionnaire with an adequate MID that may be used as threshold for change during rehabilitation of MS patients.

Trial registration

This trial was retrospectively (01/24/2015) registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02346279.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Van der Maas NA, Biland-Thommen U, Grillo JT. Die Valididität, Reliabilität und Akzeptanz des Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire for Physiotherapists (MSQPT). Physioscience. 2010;5:135–42.CrossRef
2.
Van der Maas NA, Steinlin Egli R. Evaluation des subjektiven Gesundheitszustandes von MS-Patienten in physiotherapeutischer Behandlung: Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire for Physiotherapists®(MSQPT®). In: Schädler S et al., editors. Assessments in der rehabilitation, band 1: neurologie. 3rd ed. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber; 2012. p. 532–9.
3.
Bortz J, Döring N. Forschungsmethoden und evaluation für human- und sozialwissenschaftler. 3rd ed. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer; 2003. p. 180–1.
4.
Wirtz M, Caspar F. Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität. Göttingen Bern Toronto Seattle: Hogrefe-Verlag; 2002. p. 123–7.
5.
Revicki D, Hays RD, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Turner D, Schünemann HJ, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):28–36.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14):i–iv. 1-74.PubMed
8.
Baert I, Freeman J, et al. Responsiveness and clinically meaningful improvement, according to disability level, of five walking measures after rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: a European multicenter study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(7):621–31.CrossRefPubMed
9.
De Groot V, Beckerman H, et al. The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2006;129(Pt10):2648–59.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Fayers PM, Hays RD. Don’t middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(1):1–4.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gold SM, Schulz H, et al. Responsiveness of patient-based and external rating scales in multiple sclerosis: head-to-head comparison in three clinical settings. J Neurol Sci. 2010;290(1–2):102–6.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Norman, et al. 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
13.
Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(9):861–73.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Wyrwich KW, Norquist JM, et al. Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:475–83.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
17.
Middel B, de Greef M, et al. Why do not we ask patients with coronary disease directly how much they have changed after treatment? J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2002;22(1):47–52.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Gold SM, Heesen C, et al. Disease specific quality of life instruments in multiple sclerosis: validation of the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS). Mult Scler. 2001;7(2):119–30.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Wright JG. The minimal important difference: Who’s to say what is important? J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(11):1221–2.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Gijbels D, Dalgas U, et al. Which walking capacity tests to use in multiple sclerosis? A multicentre study providing the basis for a core set. Mult Scler. 2012;18(3):364–71.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Feys P, Gijbels D, et al. Effect of time of day on walking capacity and self-reported fatigue in persons with multiple sclerosis: a multi-center trial. Mult Scler. 2012;18(3):351–7.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Learmonth YC, Dlugonski DD, et al. The reliability, precision and clinically meaningful change of walking assessments in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2013;19(13):1784–91.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Schwid SR, Goodman AD, et al. Quantitative functional measures in MS: what is a reliable change? Neurology. 2002;58(8):1294–6.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kragt JJ, van der Linden FA, et al. Clinical impact of 20% worsening on timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2006;12(5):594–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Tyson SF, Connel LA. How to measure balance in clinical practice. A systematic review of the psychometrics and clinical utility of measures of balance activity for neurological conditions. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(9):824–40.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Latzel G, Fischbacher Schrobiltgen E. Multiple Sklerose in der Schweiz. In: Die Lebensbedingungen von MS-Betroffenen und die finanziellen Folgen ihrer Krankheit. Zürich: Schweizerische MS-Gesellschaft Zürich; 2001.
27.
Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1008–18.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health- related quality-of-life research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18(5):419–23.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient-reported questionnaires in MS rehabilitation: responsiveness and minimal important difference of the multiple sclerosis questionnaire for physiotherapists (MSQPT)
Author
Nico Arie van der Maas
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Neurology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2377
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-017-0834-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Neurology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Case report

Rapidly progressive psychotic symptoms triggered by infection in a patient with methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase deficiency: a case report

Research article

Patient satisfaction with ExtaviPro™ 30G, a new auto-injector for administering interferon β-1b in multiple sclerosis: results from a real-world, observational EXCHANGE study

Research article

Effectiveness of the capsaicin 8% patch in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain in European clinical practice: the ASCEND study

Research article

Peginterferon beta-1a improves MRI measures and increases the proportion of patients with no evidence of disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: 2-year results from the ADVANCE randomized controlled trial

Research article

Subjective patient-reported versus objective adherence to subcutaneous interferon β-1a in multiple sclerosis using RebiSmart®: the CORE study

Case report

A limb-girdle myopathy phenotype of RUNX2 mutation in a patient with cleidocranial dysplasia: a case study and literature review