Difference, significant difference and clinically meaningful difference: The meaning of change in rehabilitation
Author:
Open Access
- 24 April 2015
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Korean Society of Exercise Rehabilitation in Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation
- Vol. 11 (2) , 67-73
Abstract
The valid confirmation of a positive change (improvement) in a patient's health status due to intervention has been at the core of medicine and rehabilitation since their very inception as clinicians always aspired to ensure that treating their patients had led to successful outcomes both in acute and chronic conditions. However what is change: either improvement or worsening (aggravation), is a complicated issue which involves clinical as well as statistical considerations. Change invariably relates to a difference in some measurable entity and almost always it relates to a time span. The confirmation of clinical change is important both for varying the treatment course (if necessary) and for the termination of treatment when the latter has reached wither its prescribed objective or a plateau. Since in the context of rehabilitation, the outcome measures (OM) are strongly linked to performance, determination of change in the latter is confounded by many factors, collectively known as the error of measurement, which render a decision regarding clinically meaningful change, highly involved. This is further complicated by the stability of the observed OM, the so-called reproducibility of the OM, and the accuracy of the measurement instrument. The higher the reproducibility the lower is the error. Moreover, in order to proclaim change, in most cases a positive one, it is necessary for the difference in outcome scores (i.e. the change) to surpass the error of measurement, in varying degree of rigor. This paper describes selected methods associated with determination of change and focuses predominantly on the difference between a simple difference in scores ('simple change'), a significant difference in scores and the so-called clinically meaningful change in scores which is considered today as the benchmark for confirmation of a real change.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hand-held dynamometry: A practicable alternative for obtaining objective measures of muscle strengthIsokinetics and Exercise Science, 2012
- Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients With Shoulder Pain and the Effect of Surgical StatusJournal of Sport Rehabilitation, 2011
- Psychometric Properties of the Neck Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients With Mechanical Neck PainArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2008
- How to Assess the Reliability of Measurements in RehabilitationAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 2005
- Origin and Uses of Primum Non Nocere—Above All, Do No Harm!The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2005
- Grade 4 in manual muscle testing: the problem with submaximal strength assessmentClinical Rehabilitation, 1997
- Muscle performance evaluation in orthopaedic practice.Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1990
- Measurement of health statusControlled Clinical Trials, 1989
- Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scaleThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1982