Interpretability of the PedsQL  Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scales and Gastrointestinal Worry Scales in Pediatric Patients With Functional and Organic Gastrointestinal Diseases

Abstract

The findings support the clinical interpretability of the new PedsQL™ Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scales and Worry Scales.

PedsQL 3.2 Diabetes Module for Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: Reliability and Validity in Type 1 Diabetes

“…This equation, SEM = SD! [1 -a], is a distributionbased methodology for determining the MCID and has been previously used to determine the MCID for the PedsQL 3.0 Diabetes Module (8), as well as other PedsQL modules (24). The SEM has been linked to the MCID, in which 1 SEM has demonstrated a strong correspondence to anchor-based individual change thresholds (25).…”

“…The SEM has been linked to the MCID, in which 1 SEM has demonstrated a strong correspondence to anchor-based individual change thresholds (25). The MCID is considered the smallest clinically meaningful change in a PRO score that can be detected with measurement precision for the construct (latent variable) and not as a result of measurement error (8,24,26). The MCID has been defined as "the smallest difference in score in the outcome of interest that informed patients or informed proxies perceive as important, either beneficial or harmful, and that would lead the patient or clinician to consider a change in the management" (27).…”

“…The MCID has been defined as "the smallest difference in score in the outcome of interest that informed patients or informed proxies perceive as important, either beneficial or harmful, and that would lead the patient or clinician to consider a change in the management" (27). Thus, the MCID provides evidence in support of the clinical interpretability of scale scores (24) and represents a change in scores that would be perceived as a clinically meaningful difference to patients and their parents (8).…”

The role of different diets in children who are gastrostomy fed

“…the commissioning brief and rapid review of the evidence (6);  consultation with: dietitians, paediatricians, care team staff at a local children's hospice, a parent who currently feeds her son a blended diet;,  information contained in the risk assessment of enteral tube administration of liquidised diet from the Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Group(20), and the Practice Toolkit for liquidised food via gastrostomy tube from the British Dietetic Association (1).…”

“…Sample Size calculationFrom the table on page 14 we can see that with a sample size of 300 for the analysis (assuming there are twice as many formula fed as home blended) we should be able to estimate proportions within each group to within a margin of error of ≤10% and continuous measures (e.g. PEDSQL assuming standard deviation20) to within a standard error of 4 points.…”