The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 28-36

  Turner, Dan ^a   Schünemann, Holger J ^b,c   Griffith, Lauren E ^c   Beaton, Dorcas E ^d   Griffiths, Anne M ^e   Critch, Jeffrey N ^f   Guyatt, Gordon H ^c  

^a SHAARE ZEDEK MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^b REGINA ELENA NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^f MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

Author keywords

CRQ; Minimal detectable change; Minimal important difference; PCDAI; PUCAI; RQLQ

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CHRONIC RESPIRATORY TRACT DISEASE; CROHN DISEASE; DISEASE ACTIVITY; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MINIMAL DETECTABLE CHANGE; MINIMAL IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RELIABILITY; RHINOCONJUNCTIVITIS; SCORING SYSTEM; ULCERATIVE COLITIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CHILD; COLITIS, ULCERATIVE; CONJUNCTIVITIS, ALLERGIC; CROHN DISEASE; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL AGENTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESPIRATION DISORDERS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 70649097286     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.024     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Jaeschke R., Singer J., and Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10 (1989) 407-415
2. Schunemann H.J., Puhan M., Goldstein R., Jaeschke R., and Guyatt G.H. Measurement properties and interpretability of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ). COPD 2 (2005) 81-89
3. Norman G.R., Sridhar F.G., Guyatt G.H., and Walter S.D. Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 39 (2001) 1039-1047
4. Crosby R.D., Kolotkin R.L., and Williams G.R. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56 (2003) 395-407
5. Kazis L.E., Anderson J.J., and Meenan R.F. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27 3 Suppl (1989) S178-S189
6. Liang M.H., Fossel A.H., and Larson M.G. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 28 (1990) 632-642
7. Wyrwich K.W., Tierney W.M., and Wolinsky F.D. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52 (1999) 861-873
8. Jacobson N.S., and Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59 (1991) 12-19
9. Bland J.M., and Altman D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1 (1986) 307-310
10. Deyo R.A., and Centor R.M. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39 (1986) 897-906
11. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (1977), Academic Press, New York
12. Revicki D.A., Cella D., Hays R.D., Sloan J.A., Lenderking W.R., and Aaronson N.K. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4 (2006) 70
13. Osoba D., Rodrigues G., Myles J., Zee B., and Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 16 (1998) 139-144
14. Samsa G., Edelman D., Rothman M.L., Williams G.R., Lipscomb J., and Matchar D. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 15 (1999) 141-155
15. Redelmeier D.A., Guyatt G.H., and Goldstein R.S. On the debate over methods for estimating the clinically important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 49 (1996) 1223-1224
16. McHorney C.A., and Tarlov A.R. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res 4 (1995) 293-307
17. Eliasziw M., Young S.L., Woodbury M.G., and Fryday-Field K. Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther 74 (1994) 777-788
18. de Vet H.C., Ostelo R.W., Terwee C.B., van der Roer N., Knol D.L., Beckerman H., et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16 (2007) 131-142
19. Norman G.R., Sloan J.A., and Wyrwich K.W. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41 (2003) 582-592
20. Beaton D.E., Bombardier C., Katz J.N., and Wright J.G. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54 (2001) 1204-1217
21. Hageman W.J., and Arrindell W.A. Establishing clinically significant change: increment of precision and the distinction between individual and group level of analysis. Behav Res Ther 37 (1999) 1169-1193
22. Lassere M.N., van der Heijde D., and Johnson K.R. Foundations of the minimal clinically important difference for imaging. J Rheumatol 28 (2001) 890-891
23. Lassere M.N., van der Heijde D., Johnson K., Bruynesteyn K., Molenaar E., Boonen A., et al. Robustness and generalizability of smallest detectable difference in radiological progression. J Rheumatol 28 (2001) 911-913
24. Beaton D.E. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 25 (2000) 3192-3199
25. Wyrwich K.W., and Wolinsky F.D. Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. J Eval Clin Pract 6 (2000) 39-49
26. Ward M.M., Marx A.S., and Barry N.N. Identification of clinically important changes in health status using receiver operating characteristic curves. J Clin Epidemiol 53 (2000) 279-284
27. Bruynesteyn K., van der Heijde D., Boers M., Lassere M., Boonen A., Edmonds J., et al. Minimal clinically important difference in radiological progression of joint damage over 1 year in rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary results of a validation study with clinical experts. J Rheumatol 28 (2001) 904-910
28. Ozyurekoglu T., McCabe S.J., Goldsmith L.J., and LaJoie A.S. The minimal clinically important difference of the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Symptom Severity Scale. J Hand Surg [Am] 31 (2006) 733-738 Discussion 9-40
29. Kundhal P.S., Critch J.N., Zachos M., Otley A.R., Stephens D., and Griffiths A.M. Pediatric Crohn Disease Activity Index: responsive to short-term change. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 36 (2003) 83-89
30. Childs J.D., Piva S.R., and Fritz J.M. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine 30 (2005) 1331-1334
31. Stratford P.W., Binkley J.M., Riddle D.L., and Guyatt G.H. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78 (1998) 1186-1196
32. de Boer Y.A., Hazes J.M., Winia P.C., Brand R., and Rozing P.M. Comparative responsiveness of four elbow scoring instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 28 (2001) 2616-2623
33. Riddle D.L., Stratford P.W., and Binkley J.M. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther 78 (1998) 1197-1207
34. Juniper E.F., Guyatt G.H., Willan A., and Griffith L.E. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 47 (1994) 81-87
35. Dawson J., Doll H., Coffey J., and Jenkinson C. Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15 (2007) 918-931
36. Stratford P.W., and Binkley J.M. Measurement properties of the RM-18. A modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Scale. Spine 22 (1997) 2416-2421
37. Cleland J.A., Childs J.D., and Whitman J.M. Psychometric properties of the Neck Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with mechanical neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89 (2008) 69-74
38. Turner D., Otley A.R., Mack D., de Bruijne J., Uusoue K., Walter T., et al. Development and evaluation of a Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI): a prospective multicenter study. Gastroenterology 133 (2007) 423-432
39. Beurskens A.J., de Vet H.C., and Koke A.J. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65 (1996) 71-76
40. Hyams J.S., Ferry G.D., Mandel F.S., Gryboski J.D., Kibort P.M., Kirschner B.S., et al. Development and validation of a pediatric Crohn's disease activity index. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 12 (1991) 439-447
41. Juniper E.F., Guyatt G.H., Griffith L.E., and Ferrie P.J. Interpretation of rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire data. J Allergy Clin Immunol 98 (1996) 843-845
42. Schunemann H.J., Griffith L., Jaeschke R., Goldstein R., Stubbing D., Austin P., et al. A comparison of the original chronic respiratory questionnaire with a standardized version. Chest 124 (2003) 1421-1429
43. Schunemann H.J., Goldstein R., Mador M.J., McKim D., Stahl E., Puhan M., et al. A randomised trial to evaluate the self-administered standardised chronic respiratory questionnaire. Eur Respir J 25 (2005) 31-40
44. Juniper E.F., and Guyatt G.H. Development and testing of a new measure of health status for clinical trials in rhinoconjunctivitis. Clin Exp Allergy 21 (1991) 77-83
45. Juniper E.F., Guyatt G.H., Ferrie P.J., and Griffith L.E. First-line treatment of seasonal (ragweed) rhinoconjunctivitis. A randomized management trial comparing a nasal steroid spray and a nonsedating antihistamine. CMAJ 156 (1997) 1123-1131
46. Turner D., Schünemann H.J., Griffith L.E., Beaton D.E., Griffiths A.M., Critch J.N., et al. Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009) 374-379
47. Wright J.G., and Feinstein A.R. A comparative contrast of clinimetric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol 45 (1992) 1201-1218
48. Streiner D.L. Clinimetrics vs. psychometrics: an unnecessary distinction. J Clin Epidemiol 56 (2003) 1142-1145 Discussion 6-9
49. Guyatt G.H., Osoba D., Wu A.W., Wyrwich K.W., and Norman G.R. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77 (2002) 371-383
50. Walters S.J., and Brazier J.E. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1 (2003) 4
51. Cella D., Eton D.T., Fairclough D.L., Bonomi P., Heyes A.E., Silberman C., et al. What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. J Clin Epidemiol 55 (2002) 285-295
52. Guyatt G., and Schunemann H. How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients?. Qual Life Res 16 (2007) 1097-1105
53. Puhan M.A., Mador M.J., Held U., Goldstein R., Guyatt G.H., and Schünemann H.J. Interpretation of treatment changes in 6-minute walk distance in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 3 (2008) 637-643
54. Beaton D.E., Boers M., and Wells G.A. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 14 (2002) 109-114
55. Stratford P.W., Binkley J., Solomon P., Finch E., Gill C., and Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther 76 (1996) 359-365 Discussion 66-68
56. Wyrwich K.W., Nienaber N.A., Tierney W.M., and Wolinsky F.D. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37 (1999) 469-478
57. Wolinsky F.D., Wan G.J., and Tierney W.M. Changes in the SF-36 in 12 months in a clinical sample of disadvantaged older adults. Med Care 36 (1998) 1589-1598
58. Ware Jr. J.E., and Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30 (1992) 473-483