Erratum: Correction: Using ROC Curves to Choose Minimally Important Change Thresholds when Sensitivity and Specificity Are Valued Equally: The Forgotten Lesson of Pythagoras. Theoretical Considerations and an Example Application of Change in Health Status (PLoS ONE (2015) 9:12 (e114468 ) DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114468));Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally: The forgotten lesson of pythagoras. Theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Froud, Robert ^a,b   Abel, Gary ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b Norges Helsehøyskole   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISEASE; EMGO METHOD; FARRAR METHOD; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOW BACK PAIN; MANIPULATIVE MEDICINE; MINIMALLY IMPORTANT CHANGE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; THEORETICAL MODEL; HEALTH STATUS; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LOW BACK PAIN; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; ROC CURVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84915749132     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120967     Document Type: Erratum

References (22)

1. Collinson P (1998) Of bombers, radiologists, and cardiologists: Time to ROC. Heart 80:215-217.
2. De Vet HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ (2001) Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 17:479-487.
3. De Vet HCW, Terluin B, Knol DL, Roorda LD, Mokkink LB, et al. (2010) Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values. J Clin Epidemiol 63:37-45.
4. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407-15.
5. Froud R, Underwood M, Eldridge S (2012) Improving the reporting and interpretation of clinical trial outcomes. Br J Gen Pract 62:e729-e731.
6. Deyo RA, Centor RM (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897-906.
7. De Vet H, Ostelo R, Terwee C, Van Der Roer N, Knol D, et al. (2007) Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Quality of life research 16:131-142.
8. De Vet H, Terwee C, Ostelo R, Beckerman H, Knol D, et al. (2006) Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: Distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:54.
9. Terwee C (2003) On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of life research 12:349-362.
10. De Vet H, Terwee C, Mokkink L, Knol D (2011) Measurement in Medicine. Cambridge University Press.
11. Ostelo RW, De Vet H (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 19:593.
12. Farrar JT, Young JJP, La Moreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM (2001) Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94:149-58.
13. De Vet H, Terluin B, Knol D, Roorda L, Mokkink B, et al. (2010) There are three different ways to quantify the uncertainty when minimally important change (MIC) values are applied to individual patients. J Clin Epidemiol 63(1):37-45.
14. UKBEAM (2004) United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: Effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. British Medical Journal 329:1377-1381.
15. Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8:141-4.
16. Muller U, Duetz MS, Roeder C, Greenough CG (2004) Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: Validation. Eur Spine J 13:301-13.
17. Froud R (2010) Improving interpretation of patient-reported outcomes in low back pain trials. Ph. D. thesis, Queen Mary University of London.
18. Underwood MR, Barnett AG, Vickers MR (1999) Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures. Spine 24:1104-12.
19. Beurskens A, De Vet H, Koke A (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: A comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71-76.
20. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Manniche C (2007) Choice of external criteria in back pain research: Does it matter? recommendations based on analysis of responsiveness. Pain 131:112-20.
21. Froud R, Eldridge S, Lall R, Underwood M (2009) Estimating number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: Methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK back pain exercise and manipulation (BEAM) trial. BMC Med Res Meth 9:35.
22. Froud R, Abel G (2014) ROCMIC v2.0.0: Stata module to estimate minimally important change (MIC) thresholds for continuous clinical outcome measures using ROC curves. Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics. RePEc:boc:bocode:s457052. Available: http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457052.html. Accessed 2014 November 14.