Minimal important differences in the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) version 2.1

Cephalalgia

Volumn 29, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1180-1187

  Cole, Jc ^a   Lin, P ^a   Rupnow, Mft ^b  

^a QualityMetric   (United States)

^b JANSSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

Author keywords

MCID; MID; Migraine; MSQ; Prophylaxis

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MIGRAINE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SCHOOL CHILD;

FRUCTOSE; HUMANS; MIGRAINE DISORDERS; NEUROPROTECTIVE AGENTS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 70349687365     PISSN: 03331024     EISSN: 14682982     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2009.01852.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Jaeschke R, Singer JD, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimally clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989 10 : 407 415.
2. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwhich KW, Norman GR, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002 77 : 371 383.
3. Food and Drug Administration - Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry - patient-reported outcome measures: used in medical product development to support labeling claims (draft guidance). Rockville, MD : Food and Drug Administration 2006. 2006 Contract No.: Document Number.
4. Martin BC, Pathak DS, Sharfman MI, Adelman JU, Taylor F, Kwong WJ et al. Validity and reliability of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1). Headache 2000 40 : 204 215.
5. Cole JC, Lin P, Rupnow MFT. Psychometric efficacy of the Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Version 2.1 (MSQ v2.1) for migraineurs on prophylaxis. Qual Life Res 2007 16 : 1231 1237.
6. Coeytaux RR, Kaufman JS, Chao R, Mann JD, DeVellis RF. Four methods of estimating the minimal important difference score were compared to establish a clinically significant change in Headache Impact Test. J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 : 374 380.
7. Brandes JL, Saper JR, Diamond M, Couche JR, Lewis DW, Schmitt J et al. Topiramate for migraine prevention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004 291 : 965 973. (Pubitemid 38543754)
8. Silberstein SD, Neto W, Schmitt J, Jacobs D, for the MIGR-001 Study Group. Topiramate in migraine prevention: results of a large controlled trial. Arch Neurol 2004 61 : 490 495.
9. Ware JE Jr., Kosinski JB, Bjorner M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care 2000 38 : 1173 1182.
10. Cole JC. How to deal with missing data: conceptual overview and details for implementing two modern methods. In : Osborne JW, ed. Best practices in quantitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage 2007 : 214 238.
11. Rubin DB, Schenker N. Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med 1991 10 : 585 598.
12. Wyrwhich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999 52 : 861 873.
13. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum 1988.
14. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992 112 : 155 159.
15. Wyrwhich KW, Nienbar NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intraindividual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999 37 : 469 478.
16. Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006 4 : 69 76.
17. Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 1997 50 : 79 93.
18. Deyo RA, Inui TS. Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Health Serv Res 1984 19 : 275 289.
19. Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson ME, Levine MN, Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 1989 42 : 403 408.
20. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2003 12 : 12 40.
21. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994 47 : 81 7.
22. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality of life scores. J Clin Oncol 1998 16 : 139 144.
23. Wyrwhich KW, Wolinsky FD. Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. J Eval Clin Pract 2000 6 : 39 49.
24. Bjorner JB, Wallenstein GV, Martin M, Lin P, Blaisdell B, Piech CT et al. Interpreting the magnitude of score differences in the SF-36 vitality scale: clinical and social significance. Med Care (in press).
25. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn. New York : Pearson Education 2007.
26. Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Osterhaus JT, Ware JE Jr. Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000 43 : 1478 1487.
27. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K, Liberman J, Sawyer J. Reliability of the migraine disability assessment score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999 19 : 107 114. (Pubitemid 29170106)
28. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT (TM)). Qual Life Res 2003 12 : 913 933. (Pubitemid 37386622)
29. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: a re-analysis of three clinical trials. Qual Life Res 2003 12 : 887 902.
30. Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological testing, 7th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall 1998.
31. Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA, Kinman JL, Strom BL. Defining the clinical important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain 2000 88 : 287 294.
32. Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, Osterhaus JT, Ware JE Jr. Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000 43 : 1478 1487.
33. Osoba D. Health-related quality of life outcomes in clinical trials. In : Fayers PM, Hays RD, eds. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials, 2nd edn. New York : Oxford University Press 2005 : 259 274.