Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleArticle

Minimally Important Differences of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument

DINESH KHANNA, DANIEL E. FURST, PAUL MARANIAN, JAMES R. SEIBOLD, ANN IMPENS, MAUREEN D. MAYES, PHILIP J. CLEMENTS, TERRI GETZUG and RON D. HAYS
The Journal of Rheumatology September 2011, 38 (9) 1920-1924; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110225
DINESH KHANNA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: khannad{at}med.umich.edu
DANIEL E. FURST
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PAUL MARANIAN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JAMES R. SEIBOLD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANN IMPENS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MAUREEN D. MAYES
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PHILIP J. CLEMENTS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TERRI GETZUG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RON D. HAYS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Spearman correlation coefficients between the UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 scales and ratings of overall gastrointestinal (GI), upper GI, and lower GI involvement. Scores are calculated as the difference between Time 1 and Time 2 and anchors were administered at Time 2.

    ScalesOverall GI InvolvementUpper GI InvolvementLower GI Involvement
    Reflux0.400.410.28
    Distension/Bloating0.250.240.21
    Diarrhea0.270.250.23
    Constipation0.05*0.04*0.11*
    Fecal soilage0.200.09*0.17
    Emotional well-being0.340.310.36
    Social functioning0.310.370.28
    Total GIT score0.480.520.40
    • ↵* p ≥ 0.05.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Baseline and followup gastrointestinal scores for 115 patients who completed the UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 instrument at 2 timepoints.

    BaselineFollowup Period
    ScalesMean ScoreSDRangeMean ScoreSDRangep
    Reflux0.710.540, 2.630.660.530, 2.750.6
    Distension/Bloating1.090.830, 3.001.090.830, 3.000.8
    Diarrhea0.570.680, 2.000.470.560, 2.000.1
    Fecal soilage0.30.670, 3.000.280.610, 3.000.9
    Constipation0.440.500, 2.250.420.470, 2.000.5
    Emotional well-being0.490.650, 2.780.410.600, 2.780.6
    Social functioning0.260.510, 3.000.240.460, 2.50.8
    Total score*0.670.470, 2.180.620.470, 2.010.5
    • ↵* Sum of 6 of 7 scales (excludes Constipation scale).

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Minimally important differences for UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 scales and total gastrointestinal tract score. A negative sign indicates improvement in the scale scores.

    UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0Overall GI AnchorUpper GI AnchorLower GI Anchor
    ScalePatient-rated*Mean Change (95% CI)Effect SizeMean Change (95% CI)Effect SizeMean Change (95% CI)Effect SizeOverall Mean Change†
    RefluxMuch better (n = 11–12)−0.35 (−0.69, 0)−0.68−0.26 (−0.54, 0.02)−0.52−0.3
    Somewhat better (n = 15–18)−0.26 (0.44, −0.07)−0.58−0.27 (−0.56, 0.03)−0.58−0.26
    About the same (n = 66–71)0.02 (−0.06, 0.1)0.03−0.02 (−0.01, 0.05)−0.04−0.001
    Somewhat worse (n = 15–19)0.15 (0, 0.29)0.290.22 (0.05, 0.39)0.320.19
    Much worse (n = 0–1)NANA0.41−0.52NA
    Distension/BloatingMuch better (n = 11–15)−0.71 (−1.15, 0.27)−0.74−0.41 (−0.74, 0.08)−0.52−0.56
    Somewhat better (n = 15–18)−0.04 (−0.44, 0.37)−0.05−0.24 (−0.75, 0.26)−0.34−0.14
    About the same (n = 66–71)0.11 (−0.05, 0.26)0.140.04 (−0.11, 0.2)0.060.08
    Somewhat worse (n = 13–19)−0.03 (−0.29, 0.23)−0.030.27 (0.05, 0.49)0.340.12
    Much worse (n = 0–1)NA0NANA
    DiarrheaMuch better (n = 11–15)−0.41 (−0.74, −0.08)−0.61−0.43 (−0.76, −0.1)−0.64−0.42
    Somewhat better (n = 16–18)−0.22 (−0.72, 0.28)−0.29−0.16(−0.7, 0.38)−0.19−0.19
    About the same (n = 66–69)−0.1 (−0.25, 0.05)−0.16−0.03 (−0.16, 0.1)−0.05−0.06
    Somewhat worse (n = 12–18)0.14 (−0.15, 0.43)0.210 (−0.56, 0.56)00.07
    Much worse (n = 0)NANANA
    ConstipationMuch better (n = 11–15)−0.11 (−0.55, 0.32)−0.22−0.11 (−0.43, 0.21)−0.24−0.11
    Somewhat better (n = 16–18)−0.15 (−0.47, 0.16)−0.28−0.19 (−0.53, 0.15)−0.34−0.17
    About the same (n = 66–69)−0.01 (−0.11, 0.1)−0.02−0.05 (−0.13, 0.03)−0.11−0.03
    Somewhat worse (n = 13–19)0.03 (−0.14, 0.21)0.080.23 (−0.14, 0.6)0.370.13
    Much worse (n = 0)0.41NANANA
    Fecal soilageMuch better (n = 11–15)−0.36 (−0.82, 0.09)−0.56−0.2 (−0.57, 0.17)−0.35−0.28
    Somewhat better (n = 15–17)−0.18 (−0.55, 0.2)−0.21−0.2 (−0.57, 0.17)−0.21−0.19
    About the same (n = 64–67)0.06 (−0.06–0.19)0.110.01 (−0.1, 0.13)0.030.04
    Somewhat worse (n = 13–19)0.05 (−0.14, 0.25)0.070.08 (−0.09, 0.24)0.090.06
    Much worse (n = 0)NANANANA
    Emotional well-beingMuch better (n = 11–15)−0.28 (−0.56, −0.01)−0.53−0.3 (−0.57, 0.03)−0.58−0.27 (−0.49, −0.06)−0.56−0.29
    Somewhat better (n = 14–18)−0.4 (−0.79, 0)−0.57−0.26 (−0.64, 0.11)−0.36−0.42 (−0.81, 0.02)−0.58−0.36
    About the same (n = 66–71)0 (−0.09, 0.08)0−0.05 (−0.16, 0.06)−0.080 (−0.09, 0.1)0.01−0.02
    Somewhat worse (n = 13–19)0.14 (−0.07, 0.35)0.230.15 (−0.1, 0.4)0.190.2 (−0.07, 0.46)0.240.16
    Much worse (n = 0–1)NA0.44NANANANA
    Social functioningMuch better (n = 11–15)−0.23 (−0.5, 0.05)−0.54−0.27 (−0.55, 0)−0.65−0.2 (−0.4, 0)−0.52−0.23
    Somewhat better (n = 14–18)−0.04 (−0.15, 0.08)−0.1−0.11 (−0.22, 0)−0.33−0.07 (−0.18, 0.03)−0.24−0.07
    About the same (n = 64–69)0.02 (−0.04, 0.07)0.040.03 (−0.04, 0.1)0.090.09 (0.01, 0.17)0.310.05
    Somewhat worse (n = 13–19)0.24 (−0.1, 0.57)0.390.33 (−0.02, 0.68)0.430.08 (−0.33, 0.48)0.080.21
    Much worse (n = 0–1)NA−0.17NANANANA
    Total GIT scoreMuch better (n = 11–15)−0.51 (−0.85, −0.16)−0.86−0.36 (−0.56–0.17)−0.82−0.33 (−0.48, −0.17)−0.81−0.40
    Somewhat better (n = 15–18)−0.18 (−0.32, −0.03)−0.5−0.28 (−0.57, 0.01)−0.56−0.16 (−0.32, 0.01)−0.44−0.20
    About the same (n = 66–71)0.02 (−0.04, 0.08)0.040 (−0.07, 0.07)00.01 (−0.07, 0.1)0.030.01
    Somewhat worse (n = 13–19)0.12 (−0.03, 0.27)0.220.2 (0.99, 0.31)0.360.05 (−0.16, 0.25)0.070.12
    Much worse (n = 0–1)NANANA
    • ↵* n represents patients who are categorized into 5 different responses. n are presented as a range because the number of patients in each category is different based on their responses to the anchors. For Reflux and Distension/Bloating scales, we used overall and upper GI anchor; for Diarrhea, Constipation, and Fecal soilage, we used overall and lower GI anchors.

    • ↵† Overall mean change is the average of mean scores for different anchors. NA: not applicable.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Minimally important difference estimates for the UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 scales. Negative score denotes improvement.

    UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0MID Estimates
    Reflux
      Somewhat better−0.26
      Somewhat worse0.19
    Distension/bloating
      Somewhat better−0.14
      Somewhat worse0.12
    Diarrhea
      Somewhat better−0.19
      Somewhat worse0.07
    Constipation
      Somewhat better−0.17
      Somewhat worse0.13
    Fecal soilage
      Somewhat better−0.19
      Somewhat worse0.06
    Emotional well-being
      Somewhat better−0.36
      Somewhat worse0.16
    Social functioning
      Somewhat better−0.07
      Somewhat worse0.21
    Total GIT score
      Somewhat better−0.20
      Somewhat worse0.12
    • UCLA SCTC GIT: University of California at Los Angeles Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract; MID: minimally important difference.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 38, Issue 9
1 Sep 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Minimally Important Differences of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Minimally Important Differences of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument
DINESH KHANNA, DANIEL E. FURST, PAUL MARANIAN, JAMES R. SEIBOLD, ANN IMPENS, MAUREEN D. MAYES, PHILIP J. CLEMENTS, TERRI GETZUG, RON D. HAYS
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2011, 38 (9) 1920-1924; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.110225

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Minimally Important Differences of the UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument
DINESH KHANNA, DANIEL E. FURST, PAUL MARANIAN, JAMES R. SEIBOLD, ANN IMPENS, MAUREEN D. MAYES, PHILIP J. CLEMENTS, TERRI GETZUG, RON D. HAYS
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2011, 38 (9) 1920-1924; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.110225
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Multitarget Therapy With Rituximab Plus Mycophenolate Mofetil Versus Rituximab Monotherapy in Systemic Sclerosis–Associated Interstitial Lung Disease
  • Clinical Features and a Nomogram for Predicting Clinical Response in Juvenile Dermatomyositis–Associated Interstitial Lung Disease
  • Who Achieves Minimal and Very Low Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis? An Analysis of the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry
Show more Article

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire