Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: A diagnostic testing approach to interpretability

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 64, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 487-496

  Beaton, Dorcas E ^a,b,c   Van Eerd, Dwayne ^a   Smith, Peter ^a,b   Van Der Velde, Gabrielle ^b   Cullen, Kimberley ^a   Kennedy, Carol A ^a,c   Hogg Johnson, Sheilah ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR WORK AND HEALTH   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Health status indicators; MCID; Psychometric properties; Reproducibility of results; Responder analyses; Sensitivity and specificity

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARM DISEASE; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISABILITY; FEMALE; FINAL STATE; HAND DISEASE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; MUSCLE STRENGTH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHOULDER DISEASE; SHOULDER PAIN; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHOULDER PAIN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79953277897     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.012     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: guidance Available at www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf 2009 Accessed November. 9, 2010
2. E. Lydick, and R.S. Epstein Interpretation of quality of life changes Qual Life Res 2 1993 221 226 (Pubitemid 23203446)
3. G.H. Guyatt, and D. Cook Health status, quality of life, and the individual JAMA 272 1994 630 631 (Pubitemid 24255223)
4. G.A. Wells, D.E. Beaton, B. Shea, M. Boers, L. Simon, and V. Strand Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods J Rheumatol 28 2001 406 412 (Pubitemid 32165161)
5. F. Tubach, G.A. Wells, P. Ravaud, and M. Dougados Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues J Rheumatol 32 2005 2025 2029 (Pubitemid 41429037)
6. D.E. Beaton, C. Bombardier, J.N. Katz, J.G. Wright, G. Wells, and M. Boers Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference J Rheumatol 28 2001 400 405
7. D.E. Beaton, M. Boers, and G.A. Wells Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research Curr Opin Rheumatol 14 2002 109 114 (Pubitemid 34185291)
8. K. Bruynesteyn, D. van der Heijde, M. Boers, M. Lassere, A. Boonen, and J. Edmonds Minimally clinically important difference in radiological progression of joint damage over one year in rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary results of a validation study with clinical experts J Rheumatol 28 2001 904 910 (Pubitemid 32246970)
9. R.D. Hays, and J.M. Woolley The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality of life research Pharmacoeconomics 18 5 2000 419 423
10. R. Jaeschke, J. Singer, and G.H. Guyatt Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference Control Clin Trials 10 1989 407 415 (Pubitemid 20025670)
11. E.F. Juniper, G.H. Guyatt, A. Willan, and L. Griffith Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire J Clin Epidemiol 47 1994 81 87 (Pubitemid 24034293)
12. C.D. Naylor, and H.A. Llewellyn-Thomas Can there be a more patient-centred approach to determining clinically important effect sizes for randomized treatment trials? J Clin Epidemiol 47 1994 787 795 (Pubitemid 24236261)
13. S.J. Pocock A perspective on the role of quality-of-life assessment in clinical trials Control Clin Trials 12 4 Suppl 1991 257S 265S
14. J.G. Wright The minimal important difference: who's to say what is important? J Clin Epidemiol 49 1996 1221 1222 (Pubitemid 26386226)
15. F. Tubach, M. Dougados, B. Falissard, G. Baron, I. Logeart, and P. Ravaud Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients Arthritis Rheum 55 2006 526 530 (Pubitemid 44289869)
16. F. Tubach, P. Ravaud, G. Baron, B. Falissard, I. Logeart, and N. Bellamy Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state Ann Rheum Dis 64 2005 34 37 (Pubitemid 40075271)
17. G.A. Wells, M. Boers, B. Shea, J.J. Anderson, D. Felson, and K. Johnson MCID/Low disease activity state workshop: low disease activity state in rheumatoid arthritis J Rheumatol 30 2003 1115 1118 (Pubitemid 36529645)
18. N.S. Jacobson, L.J. Roberts, S.B. Berns, and J.B. McGlinchey Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application, alternatives J Consult Clin Psychol 67 1999 300 307 (Pubitemid 29266499)
19. S. Bauer, M. Lambert, and S. Nielsen Clinical significance methods: a comparison of statistical techniques J Pers Assess 82 1 2004 60 70 (Pubitemid 38134001)
20. J. Fransen, and P. van Riel The Disease Activity Score and the EULAR response criteria Clin Exp Rheumatol 23 5 Suppl 39 2005 S93 S99
21. K.W. Wyrwich, W.M. Tierney, and F.D. Wolinsky Further evidence supporting standard error of measurement based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual change in health-related quality of life J Clin Epidemiol 52 1999 861 873 (Pubitemid 29385600)
22. K.W. Wyrwich, M.A. Nienaber, W.M. Tierney, and F.D. Wolinsky Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life Med Care 37 1999 469 478
23. G.R. Norman, J.A. Sloan, and K.W. Wyrwich Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation Med Care 41 2003 582 592
24. D.A. Revicki, D. Cella, R.D. Hays, J.A. Sloan, W. Lenderking, and N. Aaronson Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes Health Qual Life Outcomes 4 2006 70
25. D.E. Beaton Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation Med Care 41 2003 1 4
26. P.W. Stratford, J.M. Binkley, D.L. Riddle, and G.H. Guyatt Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1 Phys Ther 78 1998 1186 1196 (Pubitemid 28507242)
27. C. Doyle, M. Crump, M. Pinitlie, and A.M. Oza Does palliative chemotherapy palliate? Evaluation of expectations, outcomes and costs in women receiving chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer J Clin Oncol 19 2001 1266 1274 (Pubitemid 32202529)
28. D.E. Beaton, J.G. Wright, J.N. Katz, and C. Bombardier MCID: a comparison across methodological approaches [Abstract] Qual Life Res 12 2003 745
29. P.R. Fortin, G. Stucki, and J.N. Katz Measuring relevant change: an emerging challenge in rheumatic clinical trials Arthritis Rheum 38 1995 1027 1030
30. C.H. Goldsmith, M. Boers, C. Bombardier, and P. Tugwell Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles J Rheumatol 20 1993 561 565 (Pubitemid 23102494)
31. J. Kirwan Minimum clinically important difference: the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow? J Rheumatol 28 2001 439 444 (Pubitemid 32165166)
32. M.S. Lachs The more things change J Clin Epidemiol 46 1993 1091 1092
33. C.J. Kellehar, A.M. Pleil, P.R. Reese, S.M. Burgess, and P.H. Brodish How much is enough and who says so? The case of the King's Health Questionnaire and overactive bladder BJOG 111 2004 605 612 (Pubitemid 38746246)
34. K.W. Wyrwich Minimal Important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection? J Biopharm Stat 14 1 2004 97 110 (Pubitemid 38294754)
35. R.D. Hays, M. Brodsky, M. Johnston, K. Spritzer, and K. Hui Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality of life change in individual patients Eval Health Prof 28 2 2005 160 171 (Pubitemid 40628905)
36. K. Yost, D. Cella, A. Chawla, E. Holmgren, D. Eton, and J. Ayanian Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution-and anchor-based approaches J Clin Epidemiol 58 2005 1241 1251 (Pubitemid 41608540)
37. E. Wise Methods for analyzing psychotherapy outcomes: a review of clinical significance, reliable change and recommendations for future directions J Pers Assess 82 1 2004 50 59 (Pubitemid 38134000)
38. O. Sangha, G. Stucki, M.H. Liang, A.H. Fossel, and J.N. Katz The self-administered comorbidity questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research Arthritis Rheum 49 2003 156 163 (Pubitemid 36418272)
39. D.E. Beaton, J.N. Katz, A.H. Fossel, V. Tarasuk, J.G. Wright, and C. Bombardier Measuring the whole or the parts. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the DASH Outcome Measure in different regions of the upper extremity J Hand Ther 14 2 2001 128 146 (Pubitemid 32463650)
40. D.E. Beaton, A.M. Davis, P.L. Hudak, and S. McConnell The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure: what do we know about it now? Br J Hand Ther 6 4 2001 109 118
41. P.L. Hudak, P.C. Amadio, C. Bombardier The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Head) Am J Ind Med 29 6 1996 602 608 (Pubitemid 26172396)
42. S. Solway, D.E. Beaton, C. Bombardier, and S. McConnell The DASH outcome measure user's manual 2nd ed. 2002 Institute for Work & Health Toronto, Ontario
43. D.L. Riddle, P.W. Stratford, and J.M. Binkley Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 2 Phys Ther 78 1998 1197 1207 (Pubitemid 28507243)
44. F.G. Hunsaker, D.A. Cioffi, P.C. Amadio, J.G. Wright, and B. Caughlin The American academy of orthopedic surgeons outcomes instruments: normative data from the general population J Bone Joint Surg 84A 2002 208 215 (Pubitemid 37127481)
45. G.H. Guyatt, E.F. Juniper, S.D. Walter, L. Griffith, and R.S. Goldstein Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials BMJ 316 1998 690 693 (Pubitemid 28121037)
46. N.S. Jacobson, and P. Traux Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research J Consult Clin Psychol 59 1991 12 19
47. P.W. Stratford, J. Binkley, P. Soloman, E. Finch, C. Gill, and J. Moreland Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire Phys Ther 76 1996 359 368 (Pubitemid 26119120)
48. D.A. Redelmeier, G.H. Guyatt, and R.S. Goldstein Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques J Clin Epidemiol 49 1996 1215 1219 (Pubitemid 26386225)
49. R.H. Fletcher, S.W. Fletcher, and E.H. Wagner Clinical epidemiology: the essentials 3rd ed. 1996 Williams & Wilkins Baltimore, MD
50. D. Turner, H.J. Schunemann, L.E. Griffith, D.E. Beaton, A.M. Griffiths, and J.N. Critch The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference J Clin Epidemiol 63 2010 28 36
51. F. Tubach, B. Giraudeau, and P. Ravaud The variability in minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state values did not have an impact on treatment effect estimates J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 725 728
52. J. Lemieux, D.E. Beaton, S. Hogg-Johnson, L.J. Bordeleau, and P.J. Goodwin Three methods for minimally important difference: no relationship was found with the net proportion of patients improving J Clin Epidemiol 60 2007 448 455 (Pubitemid 46529142)
53. R. Jaeschke, G.H. Guyatt, and D. Cook Quality of life instruments in the evaluation of new drugs Pharmacoeconomics 1 2 1992 84 94
54. C.B. Terwee, F.W. Dekker, M.P. Mourtis, M.N. Gerding, L. Baldeshi, and R. Kalmann Interpretation and validity of changes in scores on the Grave's ophthalmopathy quality of life questionnaire (GO-QOL) after different treatments Clin Endocrinol 54 2001 391 398 (Pubitemid 32234205)
55. D.A. Redelmeier, and K. Lorig Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements: an illustration in rheumatology Arch Intern Med 153 1993 1337 1342 (Pubitemid 23169927)
56. M. Boers, J.J. Anderson, and D. Felson Deriving an operational definition of low disease activity state in rheumatoid arthritis J Rheumatol 30 2003 1112 1114 (Pubitemid 36529644)
57. F. Tubach, P. Ravaud, G. Baron, B. Falissard, I. Logeart, and N. Bellamy Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement Ann Rheum Dis 64 2005 29 33 (Pubitemid 40075270)
58. D.L. Streiner Measuring individual level change J Pers Assess 82 1 2004 48 49
59. F.J. Molnar, M. Man-Son-Hing, and D. Fergusson Systematic review of measures of clinical significance employed in randomized controlled trials of drugs for dementia J Am Geriatr Soc 57 2009 536 546