Duration of rehabilitation therapy to achieve a minimal clinically important difference in mobility, walking endurance and patient-reported physical health: an observational study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v55.12322Keywords:
therapy dose, exercise, minimal clinically important difference, rehabilitation, outcomeAbstract
Objective: To compare the duration of exercise therapy needed to achieve a minimal clinically important difference in mobility, walking endurance and patient-reported global physical health in patients referred for inpatient rehabilitation after knee surgery, hip surgery, or with multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease.
Design: Retrospective pre-post intervention observational cohort study.
Subjects: A total of 388 patients (57% women, mean age 65.6 years (standard deviation 9.5)) with a minimum length of stay 10 days were included between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2021.
Methods: Outcomes were assessed at the start of, and discharge from, rehabilitation, using the following measures: mobility (Timed Up and Go test), walking endurance (6-minute walk test), patient-reported global physical health (Global Physical Health subscale of the 10-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System). The duration of exercise therapy needed to achieve a minimal clinically important difference was determined using anchor-based and distribution-based methods.
Results: The duration of therapy needed to achieve a minimal clinically important difference was longer in patients with multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease (18–88 h) than in patients after knee or hip surgery (8–25 h). In all patient groups, the duration of exercise therapy needed, determined using the distribution-based method, was shortest for patient-reported global physical health (knee surgery 9.6 h, hip surgery 6.8 h, multiple sclerosis 38.7 h, Parkinson’s disease 18.4 h).
Conclusion: The duration of active therapies required to achieve a minimal clinically important difference in physical outcomes varies widely (range 8–88 h) among different patient groups and outcomes.
Downloads
References
van Doormaal MCM, Meerhoff GA, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Peter WF. A clinical practice guideline for physical therapy in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Musculoskeletal Care 2020; 18: 575-595.
https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1492 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1492
Learmonth YC, Motl RW. Exercise training for multiple sclerosis: a narrative review of history, benefits, safety, guidelines, and promotion. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 13245.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413245 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413245
Cheng F-Y, Yang Y-R, Chen L-M, Wu Y-R, Cheng S-J, Wang R-Y. Positive effects of specific exercise and novel turning-based tread-mill training on turning performance in individuals with parkinson's disease: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 33242.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33242 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33242
Mak MK, Wong-Yu IS, Shen X, Chung CL. Long-term effects of exercise and physical therapy in people with parkinson disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2017; 13: 689-703.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2017.128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2017.128
Abbruzzese G, Marchese R, Avanzino L, Pelosin E. Rehabilitation for Parkinson's disease: current outlook and future challenges. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016; 22 Suppl 1: S60-64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.09.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.09.005
Radder DLM, Lígia Silva de Lima A, Domingos J, Keus SHJ, van Nimwegen M, Bloem BR, et al. Physiotherapy in Parkinson's dis-ease: a meta-analysis of present treatment modalities. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2020; 34: 871-880.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968320952799 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968320952799
Osborne JA, Botkin R, Colon-Semenza C, DeAngelis TR, Gallardo OG, Kosakowski H, et al. Physical therapist management of Par-kinson disease: a clinical practice guideline from the American Physical Therapy Association. Phys Ther 2022; 102: pzab302.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab302
Mistry JB, Elmallah RDK, Bhave A, Chughtai M, Cherian JJ, McGinn T, et al. Rehabilitative guidelines after total knee arthroplasty: a review. J Knee Surg 2016; 29: 201-217.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1579670 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1579670
Masaracchio M, Hanney WJ, Liu X, Kolber M, Kirker K. Timing of rehabilitation on length of stay and cost in patients with hip or knee joint arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0178295.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178295 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178295
Amatya B, Khan F, Galea M. Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: an overview of cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 1: CD012732.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012732.pub2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012732.pub2
Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed "up & go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142-148.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x
Valet M, Lejeune T, Devis M, van Pesch V, El Sankari S, Stoquart G. Timed up-and-go and 2-minute walk test in patients with multi-ple sclerosis with mild disability: reliability, responsiveness and link with perceived fatigue. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2019; 55: 450-455.
https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.18.05366-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.18.05366-2
Kool J, Oesch P, Bachmann S. Predictors for living at home after geriatric inpatient rehabilitation: A prospective cohort study. J Rehabil Med 2017; 49: 185-190.
https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2182
American Thoracic Society. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 111-117.
https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.166.1.at1102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.166.1.at1102
Kobayashi E, Himuro N, Takahashi M. Clinical utility of the 6-min walk test for patients with moderate Parkinson's disease. Int J Rehabil Res 2017; 40: 66-70.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000205
Potter K, Cohen ET, Allen DD, Bennett SE, Brandfass KG, Widener GL, et al. Outcome measures for individuals with multiple sclero-sis: recommendations from the american physical therapy association neurology section task force. Phys Ther 2014; 94: 593-608.
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130149 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130149
Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the pa-tient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res 2009; 18: 873-880.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9
Baldassari LE, Nakamura K, Moss BP, Macaron G, Li H, Weber M, et al. Technology-enabled comprehensive characterization of multiple sclerosis in clinical practice. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2020; 38: 101525.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2019.101525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2019.101525
Shim J, Hamilton DF. Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS-10 Global Health and EQ-5D questionnaires in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B: 832-837.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1543.R1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1543.R1
Torchia MT, Austin DC, Werth PM, Lucas AP, Moschetti WE, Jevsevar DS. A sane approach to outcome collection? Comparing the performance of single- versus multiple-question patient-reported outcome measures after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: S207-S213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.015
Shulman LM, Armstrong M, Ellis T, Gruber-Baldini A, Horak F, Nieuwboer A, et al. Disability rating scales in parkinson's disease: critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 2016; 31: 1455-1465.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26649 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26649
Linn BS, Linn MW, Gurel L. Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc 1968; 16: 622-626.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x
Miller MD, Paradis CF, Houck PR, Mazumdar S, Stack JA, Rifai AH, et al. Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: application of the cumulative illness rating scale. Psychiatr Res 1992; 41: 237-248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-N DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-N
Haefeli WE. Polypharmazie. Swiss Medical Forum 2011; 11: 847-852.
https://doi.org/10.4414/smf.2011.07686 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smf.2011.07686
Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007; 7: 541-546.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008
De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Interpretability. In: De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, editors. Measure-ment in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2011: p. 227-274.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996214
Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. The truly remarkable universality of half a standard deviation: confirmation through another look. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2004; 4: 581-585.
https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.4.5.581 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.4.5.581
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2 ed: Hillsdale. Erlbaum, 1988.
Braun T, Thiel C, Schulz R-J, Grüneberg C. Responsiveness and interpretability of commonly used outcome assessments of mobility capacity in older hospital patients with cognitive spectrum disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2021; 19: 68.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01690-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01690-3
Ibrahim A, Singh DKA, Shahar S. 'Timed up and go' test: age, gender and cognitive impairment stratified normative values of older adults. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0185641.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185641 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185641
Troosters T, Gosselink R, Decramer M. Six minute walking distance in healthy elderly subjects. Eur Respir J 1999; 14: 270-274.
https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3003.1999.14b06.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3003.1999.14b06.x
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 293-307.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593882 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593882
White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Statist Med 2011; 30: 377-399.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067
Rombach I, Rivero-Arias O, Gray AM, Jenkinson C, Burke Ó. The current practice of handling and reporting missing outcome data in eight widely used proms in RCT publications: a review of the current literature. Qual Life Res 2016; 25: 1613-1623.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1206-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1206-1
Little RJA. A test of missing completely at random formultivariate data with missing values. J Am Statist Assoc 1988; 83: 1198-1202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
Breusch TS, Pagan AR. A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 1979; 47: 1287-1294.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963
Abdul-Hameed B, Matanmi OG. A modified Breusch-Pagan Test for detecting heteroscedasticity in the presence of outliers. Pure Appl Math J 2021; 10: 139-149.
Granger CV, Brownscheidle CM. Outcome measurement in medical rehabilitation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995; 11: 262-268.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300006875 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300006875
Gautschi OP, Stienen MN, Corniola MV, Joswig H, Schaller K, Hildebrandt G, et al. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in the Timed Up and Go test after surgery for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Neurosurgery 2017; 80: 380-385.
https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001320 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001320
Benaim C, Blaser S, Léger B, Vuistiner P, Luthi F. "Minimal clinically important difference" estimates of 6 commonly-used perfor-mance tests in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain completing a work-related multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20: 16.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2382-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2382-2
Wise RA, Brown CD. Minimal clinically important differences in the six-minute walk test and the incremental shuttle walking test. COPD 2005; 2: 125-129.
https://doi.org/10.1081/COPD-200050527 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1081/COPD-200050527
Bohannon RW, Crouch R. Minimal clinically important difference for change in 6-minute walk test distance of adults with pathology: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract 2017; 23: 377-381.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12629 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12629
Schrover R, Evans K, Giugliani R, Noble I, Bhattacharya K. Minimal clinically important difference for the 6-min walk test: literature review and application to Morquio A syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2017; 12: 78.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-017-0633-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-017-0633-1
Kenney RJ, Houck J, Giordano BD, Baumhauer JF, Herbert M, Maloney MD. Do Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scales demonstrate responsiveness as well as disease-specific scales in patients undergoing knee art-hroscopy? Am J Sports Med 2019; 47: 1396-1403.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519832546 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519832546
Khalil LS, Darrith B, Franovic S, Davis JJ, Weir RM, Banka TR. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health Short Forms demonstrate responsiveness in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: 1540-1544.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.032
Kuhns BD, Reuter J, Lawton D, Kenney RJ, Baumhauer JF, Giordano BD. Threshold values for success after hip arthroscopy using the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system assessment: determining the minimum clinically important diffe-rence and patient acceptable symptomatic state. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48: 3280-3287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520960461 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520960461
Hung M, Saltzman CL, Kendall R, Bounsanga J, Voss MW, Lawrence B, et al. What are the MCIDs for PROMIS, NDI, and ODI in-struments among patients with spinal conditions? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476: 2027-2036.
https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000419 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000419
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Nicoline Kool, Jan Kool, Stefan Bachmann
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All digitalized JRM contents is available freely online. The Foundation for Rehabilitation Medicine owns the copyright for all material published until volume 40 (2008), as from volume 41 (2009) authors retain copyright to their work and as from volume 49 (2017) the journal has been published Open Access, under CC-BY-NC licences (unless otherwise specified). The CC-BY-NC licenses allow third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
From 2024, articles are published under the CC-BY licence. This license permits sharing, adapting, and using the material for any purpose, including commercial use, with the condition of providing full attribution to the original publication.
