New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 65, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 817-826

  Johnston, Bradley C ^a,b,c   Thorlund, Kristian ^b   Da Costa, Bruno R ^d   Furukawa, Toshi A ^e   Guyatt, Gordon H ^b  

^a HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^e KYOTO UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Continuous outcomes; Health status; Meta analysis; Minimally important difference; Quality of life; Standard deviation

Indexed keywords

AMITRIPTYLINE;

HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PULMONARY REHABILITATION; REVIEW; STATISTICS;

AMITRIPTYLINE; ANTIDEPRESSIVE AGENTS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, MAJOR; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PULMONARY DISEASE, CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84862884034     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.02.008     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316:690-3. (Pubitemid 28121037)
2. Patrick DL, Guyatt GH, Acquadro C. Chapter 17-Patient reported outcomes: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011:Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed March 28, 2012.
3. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, Xie F, Murad HM, Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Improving the interpretation of health-related quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: The application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:116.
4. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HC. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:524-34.
5. Turner D, Schüunemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:28-36.
6. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407. (Pubitemid 36694091)
7. Lacasse Y, Goldstein R, Lasserson TJ, Martin S. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;18(4):CD003793.
8. Guaiana G, Barbui C, Hotopf M. Amitriptyline for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(3):CD004186.
9. De La Barquera J, Brandi F, Brunner E. Double-blind study of fluoxetine vs amitriptiline in depressive and anxiety symtoms and life quality in adults with major depression. [Estudio doble-ciego sobre fluoxetina vs amitriptilina en los sintomas depresivos y de ansiedad, y calidad de vida de los adultos con depresion mayor]. Salud Mental 1998;21:58-62.
10. Bandelow B, Baldwin DS, Dolberg OT, Andersen HF, Stein DJ. What is the threshold for symptomatic response and remission for major depressive disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder? J Clin Psychiatry 2006;67:1428-34. (Pubitemid 44583391)
11. Furukawa TA, Akechi T, Azuma H, Okuyama T, Higuchi T. Evidence-based guidelines for interpretation of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2007;27:531-4. (Pubitemid 47415066)
12. Furukawa TA, Barbui C, Cipriani A, Brambilla P, Watanabe N. Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:7-10. (Pubitemid 41797469)
13. Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003;326:219. (Pubitemid 36143396)
14. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:582-92.
15. Farivar SS, Liu H, Hays RD. Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2004;4:515-23. (Pubitemid 39359638)
16. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:102-9.
17. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11(2):171-84.