Interpretation of the Swedish Self Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal cancer: Cutoff levels and minimum clinically important differences

Variability in Minimal Clinically Important Difference Calculation and Reporting in the Otolaryngology Literature

OBJECTIVE

Best practices for calculation of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of outcome measures include the use of complementary methodologies (broadly classified as anchor-based and distribution-based) and reporting of the MCID's predictive ability. We sought to determine MCID calculation and reporting patterns within the otolaryngology literature.

METHODS

A systematic search strategy of Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases was developed and implemented to identify studies reporting the determination of an MCID for an outcome measure. Studies specifically within the otolaryngology literature (defined as journals classified as "otorhinolaryngology" in the Journal Citation Reports database) were included. All those journals were additionally searched for relevant articles.

RESULTS

There were 35 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 88.6% reported MCID of a patient-reported outcome measure and the remainder were for objective outcome measurements. Anchor-based methods were used by 82.9% of studies and distribution-based methods were used by 68.6% of studies. Of all studies, 31.4% utilized anchor-based methods alone, 17.1% utilized distribution-based methods alone, and 51.4% used both methods. Only 25.7% of studies reported the sensitivity (median: 60.8%, range: 40.5%-86.7%) and specificity (median: 80.4%, range: 63.5%-88.0%) of the MCID to detect patients experiencing clinically important change.

CONCLUSION

Deviation from best practices in MCID calculation and reporting exists within the otolaryngology literature, with almost half of all studies only using one method of MCID calculation and almost three-quarters not reporting the predictive ability (sensitivity/specificity) of the calculated MCID. When predictive ability is reported, however, MCIDs appear to be more specific than sensitive.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:2059-2069, 2024.

Development and Validation of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Scale for Patients Undergoing Endodontic Treatment (OHQE) for Irreversible Pulpitis

An oral health-related quality of life measure specific to patients undergoing endodontic treatment has not been developed. This study aimed to validate the oral health-related quality of life scale for patients undergoing endodontic treatment (OHQE) for irreversible pulpitis, comprised of 42 questions. Sixty-two patients with irreversible pulpitis, comprising 23 (37.1%) males and 39 (62.9%) females, were enrolled between August 2022 and February 2023. Data were collected at three time points: pretreatment, post-treatment, and at the second week post-treatment. Factor analysis revealed physical, psychological, and expectations as subscales of OHQE. Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.87 to 0.95 for each subscale. Each subscale of the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) was moderately correlated with the OHQE subscales. Good-poor analysis revealed a significant difference between the high-scoring and low-scoring groups for each OHQE subscale. The intraclass correlation coefficients of the OHQE subscales ranged from 0.89 to 0.95. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between the pretreatment and post-treatment psychological factors (p < 0.05). Thus, OHQE will help researchers and policymakers understand the impact of oral health on the quality of life of patients with irreversible pulpitis undergoing endodontic treatment. OHQE could contribute to the appropriate planning, treatment decisions, and management of dental treatment.

Adaptation and Validation of the Self-Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngectomy (SECEL) Questionnaire into Bahasa Malaysia

BACKGROUND

Communication adjustment from patients' perspective is paramount to ensure optimization of voice rehabilitation post laryngectomy. Very few specific self-rating tools exist with the Self-Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngectomy (SECEL) having the most evidence regarding validity, reliability and clinical utility.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to translate and validate a Bahasa Malaysia version of SECEL (mSECEL) using a validated framework of transcultural adaptation.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre from February 2019 to May 2020. The mSECEL was produced following a rigorous forward and backward translation. Eighty-three laryngectomees (78 male, five female) using various methods of alaryngeal communication (47 voice prosthesis, 29 electrolarynx, three esophageal speech and four pen and paper), completed the mSECEL and mVHI-10 before head and neck and flexible laryngoscopic examinations. The mSECEL was repeated in 2 weeks via telephone interview or clinic visit. Its reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation. The Pearson product-moment correlation test was used to analyze correlation between the mSECEL and mVHI-10.

RESULTS

The mSECEL questionnaire showed strong internal consistency with the Cronbach alpha of >0.90 for total score, Environmental and Attitude subscale. The test-retest reliability for total mSECEL score was high with the intraclass correlation of 0.97. There was a highly significant positive correlation between the mSECEL total score and mVHI-10 (P < 0.001). Items in the General subscale showed poorer internal consistency with Cronbach alpha ranging 0.55-0.46 and poor correlation with mVHI-10.

CONCLUSIONS

The Bahasa Malaysia version of the SECEL measure is a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate communication perception after laryngectomy. Future studies should consider subscale validation and further abbreviation of its items to make this measure clinically relevant.

Effect of voice rehabilitation following radiotherapy for laryngeal cancer - a 3-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to report on the effectiveness of voice rehabilitation following radiotherapy for laryngeal cancer in a long-term perspective, i.e., up to three years after completion of radiotherapy.

METHODS

The study included a total of 74 patients that were randomised into an intervention group (n = 37) or a control group (n = 37). Voice recordings with blinded assessment of voice quality with the GRBAS protocol (Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain) and acoustic analysis was performed at baseline, 12 and 36 months following radiotherapy. Voice rehabilitation was performed in 10 sessions immediately following completion of radiotherapy. Patients also filled out the Swedish Self-Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal cancer.

RESULTS

The S-SECEL demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the intervention group when comparing baseline and 36 months, and no changes in the control group. Acoustic measures did not reveal any significant changes. The perceptual analysis demonstrated that when comparing the changes within the groups between baseline and 36 months there were statistically significant differences between the intervention and control group regarding the voice qualities Roughness, Breathiness and Strain. In the control group, 50% demonstrated deterioration in roughness, while in the intervention group only 7% deteriorated during this time. In Breathiness and Strain, 57 and 50%, respectively, improved in the intervention group, while only 32% and 23% improved, respectively, in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Voice rehabilitation following radiotherapy for laryngeal cancer demonstrate positive effects in patient reported outcomes and perceptual measures of voice quality, and the effects remain up to three years following radiotherapy.

Voice Quality, Function, and Quality of Life for Laryngeal Cancer: A Prospective Longitudinal Study Up to 24 Months Following Radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To study the potential changes of health-related quality of life (HRQL), voice quality, and communicative function up to 24 months following radiotherapy for patients with laryngeal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 28 patients with laryngeal cancer, treated by curatively intended radiotherapy were included in this prospective longitudinal descriptive study. Patients were followed pre-radiotherapy, 12 months, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. At each time point, voice recordings and patient-reported outcome instruments (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core30, Head and Neck35, Swedish Self-Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal Cancer) were completed. Perceptual analysis using the Grade-Roughness-Breathiness-Asthenia-Strain was performed using the voice recordings.

RESULTS

Voice quality remains inferior to the voices of healthy controls both before and up to 24 months post-radiotherapy, demonstrating no statistically significant changes during the study period. Self-perceived communicative function revealed a trend toward improvement. Health-related quality of life remains mostly at stable levels, however, with statistically significant deterioration regarding dry mouth and sticky saliva. Generally, patients reported inferior scores compared to a normal population.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated no statistically significant changes over time in HRQL and perceptual voice quality at pre-radiotherapy compared to 24 months post-radiotherapy. However, the values remain inferior to the voices of healthy controls or a normal population.

Thresholds for clinically important deterioration versus improvement in COPD health status: results from a randomised controlled trial in pulmonary rehabilitation and an observational study during routine clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a progressive disease. Preventing deterioration of health status is therefore an important therapy goal. (Minimal) Clinically Important Differences ((M)CIDs) are used to interpret changes observed. It remains unclear whether (M)CIDs are similar for both deterioration and improvement in health status. This study investigates and compares these clinical thresholds for three widely-used questionnaires.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Data were retrospectively analysed from an inhouse 3-week pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) randomised controlled trial in the German Klinik Bad Reichenhall (study 1), and observational research in Dutch primary and secondary routine clinical practice (RCP) (study 2).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with COPD aged ≥18 years (study 1) and aged ≥40 years (study 2) without respiratory comorbidities were included for analysis.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

The COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were completed at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months. A Global Rating of Change scale was added at follow-up. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine clinically relevant thresholds.

RESULTS

In total, 451 patients were included from PR and 207 from RCP. MCIDs for deterioration ranged from 1.30 to 4.21 (CAT), from 0.19 to 0.66 (CCQ), and from 2.75 to 7.53 (SGRQ). MCIDs for improvement ranged from -3.78 to -1.53 (CAT), from -0.50 to -0.19 (CCQ), and from -9.20 to -2.76 (SGRQ). Thresholds for moderate improvement versus deterioration ranged from -5.02 to -3.29 vs 3.89 to 8.14 (CAT), from -0.90 to -0.72 vs 0.42 to 1.23 (CCQ), and from -15.85 to -13.63 vs 7.46 to 9.30 (SGRQ).

CONCLUSIONS

MCID ranges for improvement and deterioration on the CAT, CCQ and SGRQ were somewhat similar. However, estimates for moderate and large change varied and were inconsistent. Thresholds differed between study settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Routine Inspiratory Muscle Training within COPD Rehabilitation trial: #DRKS00004609; MCID study: #UMCG201500447.

Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review

BACKGROUND

Interpretation of differences or changes in patient-reported outcome scores should not only consider statistical significance, but also clinical relevance. Accordingly, accurate determination of the minimally important difference (MID) is crucial to assess the effectiveness of health care interventions, as well as for sample size calculation. Several methods have been proposed to determine the MID. Our aim was to review the statistical methods used to determine MID in patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires in cancer patients, focusing on the distribution- and anchor-based approaches and to present the variability of criteria used as well as possible limitations.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using PubMed. We searched for all cancer studies related to MID determination on a PRO questionnaire. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted from eligible articles using a predefined data collection form. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and the involvement of a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles were identified, of which 46 were retained for final analysis. Both distribution- and anchor-based approaches were used to assess the MID in 37 studies (80.4%). Different time points were used to apply the distribution-based method and the most frequently reported distribution was the 0.5 standard deviation at baseline. A change in a PRO external scale (N = 13, 30.2%) and performance status (N = 15, 34.9%) were the most frequently used anchors. The stability of the MID over time was rarely investigated and only 28.2% of studies used at least 3 assessment timepoints. The robustness of anchor-based MID was questionable in 37.2% of the studies where the minimal number of patients by anchor category was less than 20.

CONCLUSION

Efforts are needed to improve the quality of the methodology used for MID determination in PRO questionnaires used in oncology. In particular, increased attention to the sample size should be paid to guarantee reliable results. This could increase the use of these specific thresholds in future studies.