Rasch analysis of the Short Physical Performance Battery in older inpatients with heart failure.

PURPOSE: The physical function of older patients with heart failure (HF) is likely to decline, and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) is widely used for its evaluation. No study has analyzed the SPPB by using Rasch model in these patients. The aim of this study was to examine the structural validity and item response of the SPPB in older inpatients with HF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter cross-sectional study, we investigated 106 older inpatients with HF. We evaluated the SPPB's rating scale structure, unidimensionality, and measurement accuracy (0 = poor performance to 4 = normal performance). RESULTS: The SPPB rating scale fulfilled the category functioning criteria. All items fit the underlying scale construct. The SPPB demonstrated adequate reliability (person reliability = 0.81) and separated persons into four strata: those with very low, low, moderate, and high physical performance. Item-difficulty measures were -0.59 to 0.96 logits, and regarding the person ability-item difficulty matching for the SPPB, the item was somewhat easy (the mean of person ability = 0.89 logits; mean of item difficulty = 0.00). CONCLUSION: The SPPB has strong measurement properties and is an appropriate scale for quantitatively evaluating physical function in older patients with HF.

For older adults with heart failure (HF), the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) is often used to measure physical performance.Rasch analysis revealed that SPPB had strong measurement properties in older adults with HF.This result may help rehabilitation professionals use the SPPB as a physical performance scale in clinical practice to aid decision-making in intervention planning.

Minimal clinically important difference in 6-minute walk distance estimated by multiple methods in inpatients with subacute cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) contributes to the ability to determine the efficacy of physiotherapy interventions and make good clinical decisions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the MCID for 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) among inpatients with subacute cardiac disease using multiple anchor-based methods. METHODS: This study was a secondary data analysis using only data from a multicenter longitudinal observational study in which 6MWD was measured at two time points. Based on the changes in 6MWD between baseline measurement and follow-up approximately 1 week after baseline measurement, the global rating of change scales (GRCs) of patients and physiotherapists, anchor method receiver operator operating characteristic curves, predictive models, and adjusted models were used to calculate the MCID. RESULTS: Participants comprised 35 patients. Mean (standard deviation) 6MWD was 228.9 m (121.1 m) at baseline and 270.1 m (125.0 m) at follow-up. MCID for each GRC was 27.5-35.6 m for patients and 32.5-38.6 m for physiotherapists. CONCLUSION: The MCID in 6MWD in patients with subacute cardiovascular disease is 27.5-38.6 m. This value may be useful in determining the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions and for decision-making.

Minimal clinically important difference of the short physical performance battery and comfortable walking speed in old-old adults with acute cardiovascular disease: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

PURPOSE: The physical function of older adults age ≥ 75 years hospitalized for cardiovascular disease (CVD) often decrease. The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) is the smallest clinically meaningful difference due to therapy. The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Comfortable Walking Speed (CWS) are physical function evaluations commonly used in people with CVD. This study aims to clarify the MCIDs of the SPPB and CWS in old-old adult with CVD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective study of 58 old-old adults with acute CVD and rehabilitation. The MCID was estimated using the participants' and physical therapists' (PT) Global Rating of Change (GRC) scales as anchors for changes in the SPPB and CWS. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to measure the discrimination accuracy. RESULTS: The MCID of SPPB was 3 points when the GRC from PT was used as an anchor (AUC = 0.70). The MCID of CWS was 0.10 m/s when the GRC from participants and PT were used as anchors (AUC = 0.70 and 0.73, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The MCID of 3 SPPB points and 0.10 m/s CWS in old-old adults with acute CVD may help determine the effectiveness of therapy and improve prognosis.Implications for rehabilitationFor people with cardiovascular disease (CVD), the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and comfortable walking speed (CWS) are often used to measure physical function.The MCID of SPPB and CWS was estimated to be 3 points and 0.10 m/s, respectively, in older adults with CVD aged ≥75 years.This finding is useful for clinicians to evaluate the efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation.

Relationship between the characteristics of lower extremity function and activities of daily living in hospitalized middle-aged and older adults with subacute cardiovascular disease.

[Purpose] To clarify the relationship between lower extremity function and activities of daily living and characterize lower extremity function in hospitalized middle-aged and older adults with subacute cardiovascular disease. [Participants and Methods] The Short Physical Performance Battery, 6-minute walk distance, and functional independence measure tests were conducted in 79 inpatients with subacute cardiovascular disease (mean age, 76.7 ± 11.9 years; 34 females). Multiple regression analysis used the functional independence measure score as the dependent variable and the Short Physical Performance Battery and 6-minute walk distance scores as independent variables. Cross-tabulations were performed for each age group, and patients who performed the Short Physical Performance Battery and 6-minute walk distance tests were divided into two groups by their respective cutoff values. [Results] Only the Short Physical Performance Battery (ß=0.568) and 6-minute walk distance (ß=0.479) scores were adopted as significant independent variables in each multiple regression model. The age <75 years group had the most patients with both good lower extremity function and aerobic capacity, whereas the age ≥75 years group had the most patients with both functions impaired. [Conclusion] Although cardiovascular disease is generally associated with decreased aerobic capacity, many older patients with cardiovascular disease in this study had decreased lower extremity function, too.

Minimal clinically important difference of the Berg Balance Scale and comfortable walking speed in patients with acute stroke: A multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimal clinically important difference between the Berg Balance Scale and comfortable walking speed in acute-phase stroke patients. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study. SETTING: Inpatient acute stroke rehabilitation. SUBJECTS: Seventy-five patients with acute stroke, mean (SD) age 71.7 (12.2) years. INTERVENTION: Inpatients with acute stroke were assessed with the Berg Balance Scale and comfortable walking speed before and after rehabilitation. Physiotherapy was conducted to improve balance and gait over a 2-week period: an average of 40 min/day on weekdays and 20 min/day on weekends and holidays. MAIN MEASURES: The patients' Berg Balance Scale, comfortable walking speed, Global Rating of Change scale (patient-rated and physiotherapist-rated), and motor score of the Functional Independence Measure were obtained. Minimal clinically important differences were estimated using both anchor- (receiver operating characteristic curves and change difference) and distribution-based approaches (minimal detectable change and 0.5× the change score [SD]). RESULTS: The baseline scores were 31.2 (18.9) for the Berg Balance Scale and 0.79 (0.35) m/s for comfortable walking speed. The minimal clinically important difference in the Berg Balance Scale was 6.5-12.5 points by the anchor-based approach and 2.3-4.9 points by the distribution-based approach. The minimal clinically important difference in comfortable walking speed was 0.18-0.25 m/s by the anchor-based and 0.13-0.15 m/s by the distribution-based approach. CONCLUSIONS: A change of 6.5-12.5 points in the Berg Balance Scale and 0.18-0.25 m/s in the comfortable walking speed is required in these measurements' anchor-based minimal clinically important differences to be beyond measurement error, and to be perceptible by both patients and clinicians.