Minimally Important Differences of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument

Published in: The Journal of Rheumatology, v. 38, no. 9, Sep. 2011, p. 1920-1924

Posted on RAND.org on September 01, 2011

by Dinesh Khanna, Daniel E. Furst, Paul Maranian, James R. Seibold, Ann Impens, Maureen D. Mayes, Vivien Hsu, Philip J. Clements, Terri Getzug, Ron D. Hays

Read More

Access further information on this document at The Journal of Rheumatology

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: To provide minimally important difference (MID) estimates for the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract 2.0 (UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0) in a longitudinal observational cohort. METHODS: We administered the UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 to 115 patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) at 2 timepoints 6 months apart. The UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 has 7 multi-item scales: Reflux, Distension/Bloating, Diarrhea, Fecal Soilage, Constipation, Emotional Well-being, and Social Functioning and a total GIT score. All scales are scored from 0 [better health-related quality of life (HRQOL)] to 3 (worse HRQOL) except the diarrhea and constipation scales (ranges 0–2 and 0–2.5, respectively). Patients also rated their overall and upper and lower GIT involvement during the second visit using a response scale with options "much better; somewhat better; almost the same; somewhat worse; or much worse." The minimally changed group was defined by those reporting they were somewhat better or somewhat worse compared to first visit. RESULTS: Study participants were 84% female and 81% white with a mean disease duration of 6.9 years. The MID estimates for improvement ranged from 0.07 for the Social Functioning scale to 0.36 for the Emotional Well-being scale. For worsening, the MID estimates ranged from 0.06 for the Fecal Soilage scale to 0.21 for the Social Functioning scale. CONCLUSION: We provide MID estimates for the UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 scales. This information can aid in interpreting scale scores in future randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.