Annals of surgery · 2025
Beyond P Values : Novel Minimal Important Difference of the Comprehensive Complication Index That Reflects a Meaningful Outcome for Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abbassi Fariba, Pfister Matthias, Braun Julia, Angenete Eva, Haglind Eva, Onerup Aron, Heijmans Margot H M, Slooter Gerrit D, Molenaar Charlotte J L, Fiore Julio F, Feldman Liane S, Pecorelli Nicolò, Guarneri Giovanni, Falconi Massimo, Drejian Sarkis K, Fretland Åsmund A, Edwin Bjorn, Ubels Sander, Hannink Gerjon, Puhan Milo A, Clavien Pierre-Alain
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimal important difference (MID) of the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.
BACKGROUND: The CCI ® is a validated metric that quantifies cumulative surgical morbidity. While the CCI ® is a sensitive endpoint to detect treatment effects, a statistically significant effect does not necessarily translate into clinical relevance. Relevant differences from the patients' perspective are best captured by the MID.
METHODS: Individual patient data were extracted from surgical studies reporting CCI ® at 30 days and using patient-reported outcome measures with established MIDs at baseline and 30 days. To determine the MID for the CCI ® , we used an anchor-based approach as recommended by methods guidelines. A patient-reported outcome measure was selected as an anchor only if the Spearman correlation coefficient between its change in score (baseline to 30 days postoperative) and the CCI ® was ≥|0.30|. We used linear regression to estimate the MID of the CCI ® across different anchors, and triangulation to determine a single MID.
RESULTS: Data were extracted from 3 published randomized controlled trials and 1 prospective observational study (n = 1583 patients) in major abdominal surgery. In colorectal surgery cohorts, 2 subscores of the Short Form-36, 2 subscores of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20, the EuroQol-5-Dimension Index Score, and the EuroQol Visual Analog Scale showed a correlation with the CCI ® of ≥|0.30|. This resulted in MID estimates for the CCI ® ranging from 6.1 to 22.2. In hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery, 1 subscore of the Short Form-36, and 2 subscores of the Patient Reported Outcome Measure Information System-29 questionnaire qualified as anchors providing MID estimates ranging from 6.2 to 13.8.
CONCLUSIONS: We propose a mean difference of 12 points in the CCI ® between treatment groups as a relevant difference in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. This MID provides an important foundation for sample size calculations and interpretation of randomized controlled trials and large real-world observational studies.
BACKGROUND: The CCI ® is a validated metric that quantifies cumulative surgical morbidity. While the CCI ® is a sensitive endpoint to detect treatment effects, a statistically significant effect does not necessarily translate into clinical relevance. Relevant differences from the patients' perspective are best captured by the MID.
METHODS: Individual patient data were extracted from surgical studies reporting CCI ® at 30 days and using patient-reported outcome measures with established MIDs at baseline and 30 days. To determine the MID for the CCI ® , we used an anchor-based approach as recommended by methods guidelines. A patient-reported outcome measure was selected as an anchor only if the Spearman correlation coefficient between its change in score (baseline to 30 days postoperative) and the CCI ® was ≥|0.30|. We used linear regression to estimate the MID of the CCI ® across different anchors, and triangulation to determine a single MID.
RESULTS: Data were extracted from 3 published randomized controlled trials and 1 prospective observational study (n = 1583 patients) in major abdominal surgery. In colorectal surgery cohorts, 2 subscores of the Short Form-36, 2 subscores of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20, the EuroQol-5-Dimension Index Score, and the EuroQol Visual Analog Scale showed a correlation with the CCI ® of ≥|0.30|. This resulted in MID estimates for the CCI ® ranging from 6.1 to 22.2. In hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery, 1 subscore of the Short Form-36, and 2 subscores of the Patient Reported Outcome Measure Information System-29 questionnaire qualified as anchors providing MID estimates ranging from 6.2 to 13.8.
CONCLUSIONS: We propose a mean difference of 12 points in the CCI ® between treatment groups as a relevant difference in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. This MID provides an important foundation for sample size calculations and interpretation of randomized controlled trials and large real-world observational studies.