A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Validation of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). | LitMetric

Background: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test is widely used to measure change in olfactory function, but a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been well-established. A study published in 1997 regarding patients with head trauma reported an MCID of 4 but did not detail the methods used in the calculation.

Objective: To validate the MCID for UPSIT in patients with postviral, sinusitis, and procedure-associated olfactory loss.

Methods: This was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from 5 clinical research studies related to olfactory function. Three studies included subjects with COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction, one with chronic sinusitis subjects, and one with subjects undergoing transsphenoidal surgery. All subjects had completed a baseline and follow-up UPSIT, baseline and follow-up Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-Severity), and a follow-up CGI-Improvement. Both distribution- and anchor-based methods were used to determine the MCID of UPSIT. Distribution-based method calculated MCID using half standard deviation of baseline UPSIT and delta UPSIT scores. Clinical-anchor method determined MCID by comparing delta UPSIT scores between CGI-I clinical categories ranging from very much better to very much worse.

Results: The study population comprised 295 subjects. Subjects had a mean (SD) baseline UPSIT score of 27 (7.5), and follow-up score of 28 (7.9), and a mean UPSIT change of 0.6 (5.8). Half the baseline UPSIT SD was 3.75 and half the delta UPSIT SD was 2.9. With the anchor-based approach, an MCID of 4 was defined as clinically meaningful by exploring the relationship between delta UPSIT and CGI-Improvement. Using a more conservative approach based on the MCID values identified from both methods, we determined that a change of 4 or greater is the appropriate MCID for UPSIT.

Conclusion: Investigators in the future should use 4 as MCID for UPSIT and report the percentage of study subjects who achieve a clinically meaningful difference.

Level Of Evidence: III.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/19458924231218037DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

delta upsit
16
upsit
13
mcid upsit
12
baseline upsit
12
mcid
11
minimal clinically
8
clinically difference
8
difference mcid
8
university pennsylvania
8
pennsylvania smell
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!