The Minimally Important Difference for the Health Assessment Questionnaire in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Practice Is Smaller Than in Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcomes are used in clinical practice and trials. We studied a large clinical practice to determine the minimally important difference (MID) estimates for (1) the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Damage Index (HAQ-DI): improvement and worsening using patient global assessment anchor; and (2) pain using a patient-reported pain anchor. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; N = 225) had clinic visits at 2 timepoints within 1 year, completed the HAQ-DI and pain visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100 mm), and answered the question, "How would you describe your overall status/overall pain since the last visit?", as much worsened, somewhat worsened, the same, somewhat improved, or much improved. If rated as somewhat improved or worsened, they were defined as the minimally changed subgroups. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent were women, mean age 60 years, with disease duration 11.7 +/- 10.7 years. The baseline HAQ-DI was 0.97 +/- SD 0.76, and at followup 1.0 +/- 0.77 (mean change +0.03 +/- 0.40). The baseline pain VAS was 42.3 +/- 28.8, and at followup 38.5 +/- 27.9 (mean change -2.8 +/- 25.9). The mean (SD) HAQ-DI change score was -0.09 (0.42) for somewhat improved and 0.15 (0.33) for somewhat worsened. The HAQ-DI change for somewhat/much better was -0.20 +/- 0.52, and for somewhat/much worse +0.21 +/- 0.33. For pain, somewhat improved changed by -11.9 mm on the VAS, and somewhat worsened by 6.8 mm. Estimates for HAQ-DI and pain were larger than the for no-change group, 0.03 (0.32) and -3.2 (20.9). CONCLUSION: The MID for HAQ-DI in clinical practice is smaller than it is in trials. This may have implications for observational studies and clinical care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.087 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".