The Minimally Important Difference for the Fatigue Visual Analog Scale in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Followed in an Academic Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for a fatigue visual analog scale (VAS) using patient-reported anchors (fatigue, pain, and overall health). METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; n = 307) had 2 clinic visits at a median of 5.9 months apart. They completed a fatigue VAS (0-10 scale) and the retrospective anchor items, "How would you describe your overall fatigue/pain/overall health since the last visit?" with response options: Much worsened, Somewhat worsened, Same, Somewhat better, or Much better. The fatigue anchor was used for primary analysis and the pain/overall health anchors for sensitivity analyses. The minimally changed group was defined by those reporting they were somewhat better or somewhat worsened. RESULTS: The mean [standard deviation (SD)] age was 59.4 (13.2) years, disease duration was 14.1 (11.5) years, and 83% of patients were women. The baseline mean (SD) Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score was 0.84 (0.75). The baseline fatigue VAS score was 4.2 (2.9) and at followup was 4.3 (2.8) [mean change of -0.07 (2.5); p = not significant]. The fatigue change score (0-10 scale) for Somewhat better and Somewhat worsened for the fatigue anchor averaged -1.12 and 1.26, respectively. Using the pain anchor, the fatigue change score for Somewhat better and Somewhat worsened averaged -0.87 and 1.13; and using the global anchor, the fatigue change score for Somewhat better and Somewhat worsened averaged -0.82 and 1.17, respectively. Effect size estimates using 3 anchors were small for the Somewhat better (range 0.27-0.39) and Somewhat worsened (0.40-0.44) groups, but larger than for the no-change group (0.03-0.08). CONCLUSION: The MID for fatigue VAS is between -0.82 for -1.12 for improvement and is 1.13 to 1.26 for worsening on a 0-10 scale in a large RA clinical practice, and is similar to that seen in RA clinical trials. This information can aid in interpreting fatigue VAS in day-to-day care in clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".