The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale

Claire J Tipping; Anne E Holland; Meg Harrold; Tom Crawford; Nick Halliburton; Carol L Hodgson

doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.07.009

The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale

Heart Lung. 2018 Sep-Oct;47(5):497-501. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.07.009. Epub 2018 Aug 20.

Authors

Claire J Tipping¹, Anne E Holland², Meg Harrold³, Tom Crawford⁴, Nick Halliburton⁵, Carol L Hodgson⁶

Affiliations

¹ Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Physiotherapy, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: c.tipping@alfred.org.au.
² Department of Physiotherapy, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Latrobe University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: A.Holland@alfred.org.au.
³ Facility of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. Electronic address: M.Harrold@curtin.edu.au.
⁴ Department of Physiotherapy, The University Hospital Geelong, Geelong, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: tomc@barwonhealth.org.au.
⁵ Department of Physiotherapy, Ballarat Base Hospital, Ballarat, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: nick.halliburton@bhs.org.au.
⁶ Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Physiotherapy, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic, Australia. Electronic address: carol.hodgson@monash.edu.

PMID: 30139509
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.07.009

Abstract

Background: The intensive care unit mobility scale (IMS) is reliable, valid and responsive. Establishing the minimal important difference (MID) of the IMS is important in order to detect clinically significant changes in mobilization.

Objective: To calculate the MID of the IMS in intensive care unit patients.

Methods: Prospective multi center observational study. The IMS was collected from admission and discharge physiotherapy assessments. To calculate the MID we used; anchor based methods (global rating of change) and two distribution-based methods (standard error of the mean and effect size).

Results: We enrolled 184 adult patients; mean age 62.0 years, surgical, trauma, and medical. Anchor based methods gave a MID of 3 with area under the curve 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.97). The two distribution based methods gave a MID between 0.89 and 1.40.

Conclusion: These data increase our understanding of the clinimetric properties of the IMS, improving its utility for clinical practice and research.

Keywords: Clinimetric properties; ICU mobility scale; Intensive care unit; Outcome measures; Rehabilitation.

Publication types

Multicenter Study
Observational Study

MeSH terms

Adult
Aged
Critical Care / statistics & numerical data*
Female
Hospitalization / statistics & numerical data
Humans
Intensive Care Units / statistics & numerical data*
Male
Middle Aged
Movement*
Prospective Studies
ROC Curve
Reproducibility of Results

Associated data

ANZCTR/ACTRN12617000536369p