Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Barthel Index in Stroke Patients

¹ School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
² School of Physical Therapy, College of Medical Technology, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
³ Graduate Institute of Health Policy and Management, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
⁴ Institute of Occupational Medicine and Industrial Hygiene, National Taiwan University College of Public Health, Taipei, Taiwan
⁵ Institute of Cognitive Science, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
⁶ Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mike26{at}ha.mc.ntu.edu.tw.

	Abstract

Background. The interpretation of the change scores of the Barthel Index (BI) in follow-up or outcome studies has been hampered by the fact that its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been determined. Objective. This article was written to establish the MCID of the BI in stroke patients. Methods. Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to establish the MCID. In the anchor-based method, 43 stroke inpatients participated in a follow-up study designed to determine the MCID of the BI using patients’ global ratings of the activities of daily living function on a 15-point Likert-type scale. The mean change scores on the 20-point scale of the BI of the MCID group, based on the patients’ ratings on the Likert-type scale, served as the first estimate of the MCID. In the distribution-based method, 56 chronic stroke patients participated in the test-retest reliability study to determine the MCID of the BI. One standard error of measurement (SEM) served as the second estimate for the MCID. The larger MCID value of the 2 estimates was chosen as the MCID of the BI. Results. In the anchor-based study, there were 20 patients in the MCID group, with a mean change score of 1.85 points (ie, the first MCID estimate). In the distribution-based study, the SEM based on test-retest agreement was 1.45 points (ie, the second MCID estimate). The MCID of the BI in stroke patients was estimated to be 1.85 points.Conclusion. The authors’ results, within the limitations of their design, suggest that if the mean BI change score within a stroke group has reached 1.85 points in a study, the change score on the BI can be perceived by patients as important and beyond measurement error (ie, such a change score is clinically important).

First published on March 9, 2007, doi:10.1177/1545968306294729

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2007;21:233.

A more recent version of this article appeared on May 1, 2007


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Stuart, F. Benvenuti, R. Macko, A. Taviani, L. Segenni, F. Mayer, J. D. Sorkin, S. J. Stanhope, V. Macellari, and M. Weinrich Community-Based Adaptive Physical Activity Program for Chronic Stroke: Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy of the Empoli Model Neurorehabil Neural Repair, September 1, 2009; 23(7): 726 - 734. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Devos, A. E. Akinwuntan, A. Nieuwboer, M. Tant, S. Truijen, L. De Wit, C. Kiekens, and W. De Weerdt Comparison of the Effect of Two Driving Retraining Programs on On-Road Performance After Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, September 1, 2009; 23(7): 699 - 705. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y.-C. Wang, D. L. Hart, P. W. Stratford, and J. E. Mioduski Clinical Interpretation of a Lower-Extremity Functional Scale-Derived Computerized Adaptive Test Physical Therapy, September 1, 2009; 89(9): 957 - 968. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. S. Y. Au-Yeung, C. W. Y. Hui-Chan, and J. C. S. Tang Short-form Tai Chi Improves Standing Balance of People With Chronic Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, June 1, 2009; 23(5): 515 - 522. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K.-c. Lin, Y.-w. Hsieh, C.-y. Wu, C.-l. Chen, Y. Jang, and J.-s. Liu Minimal Detectable Change and Clinically Important Difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in Stroke Patients Neurorehabil Neural Repair, June 1, 2009; 23(5): 429 - 434. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. F. Levin, J. A. Kleim, and S. L. Wolf What Do Motor "Recovery" and "Compensation" Mean in Patients Following Stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair, May 1, 2009; 23(4): 313 - 319. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. H. Dobkin Progressive Staging of Pilot Studies to Improve Phase III Trials for Motor Interventions Neurorehabil Neural Repair, March 1, 2009; 23(3): 197 - 206. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Mangold, C. Schuster, T. Keller, A. Zimmermann-Schlatter, and T. Ettlin Motor Training of Upper Extremity With Functional Electrical Stimulation in Early Stroke Rehabilitation Neurorehabil Neural Repair, February 1, 2009; 23(2): 184 - 190. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. H. Buurke, A. V. Nene, G. Kwakkel, V. Erren-Wolters, M. J. IJzerman, and H. J. Hermens Recovery of Gait After Stroke: What Changes? Neurorehabil Neural Repair, November 1, 2008; 22(6): 676 - 683. [Abstract] [PDF]