Search

Background: Using a real dataset, we highlighted several major methodological issues raised by the estimation of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of a Patient-Reported Outcomes instrument. We especially considered the management of missing data and the use of more than two times of measurement. While inappropriate missing data management and inappropriate use of multiple time points can lead to loss of precision and/or bias in MCID estimation, these issues are almost never dealt with and require cautious considerations in the context of MCID estimation., Methods: We used the LIGALONGO study (French Randomized Controlled Trial). We estimated MCID on the SF-36 General Health score by comparing many methods (distribution or anchor-based). Different techniques for imputation of missing data were performed (simple and multiple imputations). We also consider all measurement occasions by longitudinal modeling, and the dependence of the score difference on baseline., Results: Three hundred ninety-three patients were studied. With distribution-based methods, a great variability in MCID was observed (from 3 to 26 points for improvement). Only 0.2 SD and 1/3 SD distribution methods gave MCID values consistent with anchor-based methods (from 4 to 7 points for improvement). The choice of missing data imputation technique clearly had an impact on MCID estimates. Simple imputation by mean score seemed to lead to out-of-range estimate, but as missing not at random mechanism can be hypothesized, even multiple imputations techniques can have led to an slight underestimation of MCID. Using 3 measurement occasions for improvement led to an increase in precision but lowered estimates., Conclusion: This practical example illustrates the substantial impact of some methodological issues that are usually never dealt with for MCID estimation. Simulation studies are needed to investigate those issues., Trial Registration: NCT01240772 (ClinicalTrials.gov) registered on November 15, 2010.

Background: The Hirschsprung's disease Anorectal malformation QoL questionnaire (HAQL) is a disease-specific quality of life (QoL) questionnaire for patients with Hirschsprung's disease (HD) or anorectal malformations (ARM). It was originally proposed in Dutch and is currently being translated into other languages to obtain an internationally standardized instrument. In this work we validate a French adaptation of the HAQL for adolescents and adults., Methods: The questionnaires were translated into French and sent to patients aged 12 years and older, followed for HD or ARM at three French university hospitals. Questionnaires were sent to 147 adolescents and 188 adults. The psychometric properties of the questionnaires were analyzed in terms of reliability and validity., Results: The original HAQL structure was not satisfactory. A new structure was proposed, while aiming to remain close to the original structure. The proposed structure has acceptable reliability and validity properties and reflects both physical, as well as psychosocial aspects., Conclusions: A French version of the HAQL questionnaire for adults and adolescents is ready for use in France. In particular the score could discriminate between degrees of clinical status based on the Krickenbeck consensus, which can aid clinicians to inform patients about physical and psychosocial challenges they may expect.

Background: The Impact of Cancer version 2 (IOCv2) was designed to assess the physical and psychosocial health experience of cancer survivors through its positive and negative impacts. Although the IOCv2 is available in English and Dutch, it has not yet been validated for use in French-speaking populations. The current study was undertaken to provide a comprehensive assessment of the reliability and validity of the French language version of the IOCv2 in a sample of breast cancer survivors., Methods: An adapted French version of the IOCv2 as well as demographic and medical information were completed by 243 women to validate the factor structure divergent/divergent validities and reliability. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating the IOCv2 scales with measures from the SF-12, PostTraumatic Growth Inventory and Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory., Results: The French version of the IOCv2 supports the structure of the original version, with four positive impact dimensions and four negative impact dimensions. This result was suggested by the good fit of the confirmatory factor analysis and the adequate reliability revealed by Cronbach's alpha coefficients and other psychometric indices. The concurrent validity analysis revealed patterns of association between IOCv2 scale scores and other measures. Unlike the original version, a structure with a Positive Impact domain consisting in the IOCv2 positive dimensions and a Negative Impact domain consisting in the negative ones has not been clearly evidenced in this study. The limited practical use of the conditional dimensions Employment Concerns and Relationship Concerns, whether the patient is partnered or not, did not make possible to provide evidence of validity and reliability of these dimensions as the subsets of sample to work with were not large enough. The scores of these conditional dimensions have to be used with full knowledge of the facts of this limitation of the study., Conclusions: Integrating IOCv2 into studies will contribute to evaluate the psychosocial health experience of the growing population of cancer survivors, enabling better understanding of the multi-dimensional impact of cancer.

Purpose: New patient reported outcome (PRO) measures are regularly developed to assess various aspects of the patients' perspective on their disease and treatment. For these instruments to be useful in clinical research, they must undergo a proper psychometric validation, including demonstration of cross-sectional and longitudinal measurement properties. This quantitative evaluation requires a study to be conducted on an appropriate sample size. The aim of this research was to list and describe practices in PRO and proxy PRO primary psychometric validation studies, focusing primarily on the practices used to determine sample size., Methods: A literature review of articles published in PubMed between January 2009 and September 2011 was conducted. Three selection criteria were applied including a search strategy, an article selection strategy, and data extraction. Agreements between authors were assessed, and practices of validation were described., Results: Data were extracted from 114 relevant articles. Within these, sample size determination was low (9.6%, 11/114), and were reported as either an arbitrary minimum sample size (n = 2), a subject to item ratio (n = 4), or the method was not explicitly stated (n = 5). Very few articles (4%, 5/114) compared a posteriori their sample size to a subject to item ratio. Content validity, construct validity, criterion validity and internal consistency were the most frequently measurement properties assessed in the validation studies. Approximately 92% of the articles reported a subject to item ratio greater than or equal to 2, whereas 25% had a ratio greater than or equal to 20. About 90% of articles had a sample size greater than or equal to 100, whereas 7% had a sample size greater than or equal to 1000., Conclusions: The sample size determination for psychometric validation studies is rarely ever justified a priori. This emphasizes the lack of clear scientifically sound recommendations on this topic. Existing methods to determine the sample size needed to assess the various measurement properties of interest should be made more easily available.