Minimal important clinical difference values are not uniformly valid in the active duty military population recovering from shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND: There are multiple methods for calculating the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold, and previous reports highlight heterogeneity and limitations of anchor-based and distribution-based analyses. The Warfighter Readiness Survey assesses the perception of a military population's fitness to deploy and may be used as a functional index in anchor-based MCID calculations. The purpose of the current study in a physically demanding population undergoing shoulder surgery was to compare the yields of 2 different anchor-based methods of calculating MCID for a battery of PROMs, a standard receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve-based MCIDs and baseline-adjusted ROC curve MCIDs. METHODS: All service members enrolled prospectively in a multicenter database with prior shoulder surgery that completed pre- and postoperative PROMs at a minimum of 12 months were included. The PROM battery included Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), Patient Reported Outcome Management Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF), PROMIS pain interference (PI), and the Warfighter Readiness Survey. Standard anchor-based and baseline-adjusted ROC curve MCIDs were employed to determine if the calculated MCIDs were both statistically and theoretically valid (95% confidence interval [CI] either completely negative or positive). RESULTS: A total of 117 patients (136 operations) were identified, comprising 83% males with a mean age of 35.7 ± 10.4 years and 47% arthroscopic labral repair/capsulorrhaphy. Using the standard, anchor-based ROC curve MCID calculation, the area under the curve (AUC) for SANE, ASES, PROMIS PF, and PROMIS PI were greater than 0.5 (statistically valid). For ASES, PROMIS PF, and PROMIS PI, the calculated MCID 95% CI all crossed 0 (theoretically invalid). Using the baseline-adjusted ROC curve MCID calculation, the MCID estimates for SANE, ASES, and PROMIS PI were both statistically and theoretically valid if the baseline score was less than 70.5, 69, and 65.7. CONCLUSION: When MCIDs were calculated and anchored to the results of standard, anchor-based MCID, a standard ROC curve analysis did not yield statistically or theoretically valid results across a battery of PROMs commonly used to assess outcomes after shoulder surgery in the active duty military population. Conversely, a baseline-adjusted ROC curve method was more effective at discerning changes across a battery of PROMs among the same cohort.

Cut-off scores of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-8: Implications for improving the management of chronic pain.

AIM: Mental distress, non-specific symptoms of depression and anxiety, is common in chronic pelvic pain (CPP). It contributes to poor recovery. Women's health nurses operate in multidisciplinary teams to facilitate the assessment and treatment of CPP. However, valid cut-off points for identifying highly distressed patients are lacking, entailing a gap in CPP management. DESIGN: This instrumental cross-sectional study identified a statistically derived cut-off score for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-8 (DASS-8) among 214 Australian women with CPP (mean age = 33.3, SD = 12.4, range = 13-71 years). METHODS: Receiver operator characteristic curve, decision trees and K-means clustering techniques were used to examine the predictive capacity of the DASS-8 for psychiatric comorbidity, pain severity, any medication intake, analgesic intake and sexual abuse. The study is prepared according to the STROBE checklist. RESULTS: Cut-off points resulting from the analysis were ordered ascendingly. The median (13.0) was chosen as an optimal cut-off score for predicting key outcomes. Women with DASS-8 scores below 15.5 had higher analgesic intake. CONCLUSION: CPP women with a DASS-8 score above 13.0 express greater pain severity, psychiatric comorbidity and polypharmacy. Thus, they may be a specific target for nursing interventions dedicated to alleviating pain through the management of associated co-morbidities. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: At a cut-off point of 13.0, the DASS-8 may be a practical instrument for recommending a thorough clinician-based examination for psychiatric comorbidity to facilitate adequate CPP management. It may be useful for evaluating patients' response to nursing pain management efforts. Replications of the study in different populations/countries are warranted.

Cardiometabolic Morbidity (Obesity and Hypertension) in PTSD: A Preliminary Investigation of the Validity of Two Structures of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised.

Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or specific PTSD symptoms may evoke maladaptive behaviors (e.g., compulsive buying, disordered eating, and an unhealthy lifestyle), resulting in adverse cardiometabolic events (e.g., hypertension and obesity), which may implicate the treatment of this complex condition. The diagnostic criteria for PTSD have lately expanded beyond the three common symptoms (intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal). Including additional symptoms such as emotional numbing, sleep disturbance, and irritability strengthens the representation of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), suggesting that models with four, five, or six dimensions better capture its structure compared to the original three-dimensional model. Methods: Using a convenience sample of 58 Russian dental healthcare workers (HCWs: mean age = 44.1 ± 12.2 years, 82.8% females), this instrumental study examined the convergent, concurrent, and criterion validity of two IES-R structures: IES-R3 and IES-R6. Results: Exploratory factor analysis uncovered five factors, which explained 76.0% of the variance in the IES-R. Subscales of the IES-R3 and the IES-R6 expressed good internal consistency (coefficient alpha range = 0.69-0.88), high convergent validity (item total correlations r range = 0.39-0.81, and correlations with the IES-R's total score r range = 0.62-0.92), excellent concurrent validity through strong correlations with the PTSD Symptom Scale-Self Report (PSS-SR: r range = 0.42-0.69), while their criterion validity was indicated by moderate-to-low correlations with high body mass index (BMI: r range = 0.12-0.39) and the diagnosis of hypertension (r range = 0.12-0.30). In the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, all IES-R models were perfectly associated with the PSS-SR (all areas under the curve (AUCs) > 0.9, p values < 0.001). The IES-R, both hyperarousal subscales, and the IES-R3 intrusion subscale were significantly associated with high BMI. Both avoidance subscales and the IES-R3 intrusion subscale, not the IES-R, were significantly associated with hypertension. In the two-step cluster analysis, five sets of all trauma variables (IES-R3/IES-R6, PSS-SR) classified the participants into two clusters according to their BMI (normal weight/low BMI vs. overweight/obese). Meanwhile, only the IES-R, PSS-SR, and IES-R3 dimensions successfully classified participants as having either normal blood pressure or hypertension. Participants in the overweight/obese and hypertensive clusters displayed considerably higher levels of most trauma symptoms. Input variables with the highest predictor importance in the cluster analysis were those variables expressing significant associations in correlations and ROC analyses. However, neither IES-R3 nor IES-R6 contributed to BMI or hypertension either directly or indirectly in the path analysis. Meanwhile, age significantly predicted both health conditions and current smoking. Irritability and numbing were the only IES-R dimensions that significantly contributed to current smoking. Conclusions: The findings emphasize the need for assessing the way through which various PTSD symptoms may implicate cardiometabolic dysfunctions and their risk factors (e.g., smoking and the intake of unhealthy foods) as well as the application of targeted dietary and exercise interventions to lower physical morbidity in PTSD patients. However, the internal and external validity of our tests may be questionable due to the low power of our sample size. Replicating the study in larger samples, which comprise different physical and mental conditions from heterogenous cultural contexts, is pivotal to validate the results (e.g., in specific groups, such as those with confirmed traumatic exposure and comorbid mood dysfunction).