Advertisement

Framework for Selecting Clinical Outcomes for Clinical Trials

  • Adam J. PopchakEmail author
  • Andrew D. Lynch
  • James J. Irrgang
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Selection of sound and appropriate clinical outcomes is paramount when designing a clinical trial. The ability to draw definitive and meaningful conclusions from a clinical trial is dependent on the outcomes used and the information they provide. The clinical investigator must consider a number of factors when selecting clinical outcomes including the purpose and domain of the research question, the level of the assessment, whether to use performance-based or patient-reported measures, as well as the psychometric properties that accompany useful outcome measures. To comprehensively assess outcomes, measures used in a clinical trial should allow comparison to the population as a whole, draw definitive conclusions in the specific population or condition of interest, and consist of a combination of both performance-based and patient-reported measures. All outcomes should have appropriate levels of reliability, validity, and responsiveness to ensure that their use has methodological acceptability. Given the importance of proper selection of outcome measures, their inclusion and use in a clinical trial ought to be one of the initial steps taken during the development of the experiment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Evidence-based rehabilitation: a guide to practice. 2nd ed. Thorofare: SLACK Incorporated; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaton DE. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine. 2000;25(24):3192–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG, Wells G, Boers M, et al. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology. Minimal clinically important difference. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(2):400–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15(12):1833–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1992;1(3):98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook CE. Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther. 2008;16(4):E82–E3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guralnik JM, Branch LG, Cummings SR, Curb JD. Physical performance measures in aging research. J Gerontol. 1989;44(5):M141–M6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):873–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hefford C, Abbott JH, Arnold R, Baxter GD. The patient-specific functional scale: validity, reliability, and responsiveness in patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal problems. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(2):56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horn KK, Jennings S, Richardson G, Van Vliet D, Hefford C, Abbott JH. The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(1):30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C, Beaton D, Cole D, Davis A, et al. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, et al. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(5):600–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Irrgang JJ, Snyder-Mackler L, Wainner RS, Fu FH, Harner CD. Development of a patient-reported measure of function of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(8):1132–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirkley A, Alvarez C, Griffin S. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for disorders of the rotator cuff: the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Clin J Sport Med. 2003;13(2):84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Clin Epidemiol. 1985;38(1):27–36.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kovacs FM, Abraira V, Royuela A, Corcoll J, Alegre L, Tomás M, et al. Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9(1):43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(Suppl 3):iii40–1.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Latham NK, Mehta V, Nguyen AM, Jette AM, Olarsch S, Papanicolaou D, et al. Performance-based or self-report measures of physical function: which should be used in clinical trials of hip fracture patients? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(11):2146–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leggin B, Iannotti J. Shoulder outcome measurement. Disorders of the shoulder: diagnosis and management. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999. p. 1024–40.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G, Fortin PR, Daltroy L. Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Med Care. 2002;40(4):II-45–51.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nagi SZ. A study in the evaluation of disability and rehabilitation potential: concepts, methods, and procedures. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1964;54(9):1568–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Noyes FR, Barber SD, Mooar LA. A rationale for assessing sports activity levels and limitations in knee disorders. Clin Orthop. 1989;(246):238–49.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paulsen A, Odgaard A, Overgaard S. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish version of the Oxford Hip Score: assessed against generic and disease-specific questionnaires. Bone Joint Res. 2012;1(9):225–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Portney L, Watkins M. Foundation of clinical research: application to practice. Norwalk: Appleton & Lange; 1993.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rankin G, Stokes M. Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clin Rehabil. 1998;12(3):187–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stucki G, Liang M, Stucki S, Katz J, Lew R. Application of statistical graphics to facilitate selection of health status measures for clinical practice and evaluative research. Clin Rheumatol. 1999;18(2):101–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop. 1985;(198):42–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [press release]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam J. Popchak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrew D. Lynch
    • 1
  • James J. Irrgang
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Physical Therapy and Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options