Implications of the minimal clinically important difference for health-related quality-of-life outcomes: A comparison of sample size requirements for an incontinence treatment trial

Value in Health

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 292-298

  Halme, Alex S ^a   Fritel, Xavier ^b   Benedetti, Andrea ^c,d,e   Eng, Ken ^f   Tannenbaum, Cara ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE POITIERS   (France)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^f Independent Consultant   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

clinical trials; minimal clinically important difference; quality of life; sample size; urinary incontinence

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; GENERIC PREFERENCE BASED HEALTH RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE INSTRUMENT; GLOBAL RATING OF IMPROVEMENT; HUMAN; ICIQ (INCONTINENCE); INCONTINENCE SPECIFIC HEALTH RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE INSTRUMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SAMPLE SIZE; SHORT FORM 12; STUDY DESIGN; URINE INCONTINENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEALTH STATUS; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINARY INCONTINENCE;

AGED; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SAMPLE SIZE; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINARY INCONTINENCE;

EID: 84924985870     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. B. Röhrig, J.B. du Prel, and D. Wachtlin Sample size calculation in clinical trials: part 13 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications Dtsch Arztebl Int 107 2010 552 556
2. T. Clark, U. Berger, and U. Mansmann Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: review BMJ 346 2013 f1135
3. 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
4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf. [Accessed August 10, 2014].
5. S. Wiebe, G. Guyatt, and B. Weaver Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments J Clin Epidemiol 56 2003 52 60
6. J. Brazier, J. Connell, and D. Papaioannou A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures Health Technol Assess 18 2014 vii-viii, xiii-xxv; 1-188
7. Hawthorne G. Measuring incontinence in Australia. A project of the National Continence Management Strategy: an Australian Government Initiative. 2006. Available from: http://www.bladderbowel.gov.au/assets/doc/ncms/Phase1-2InformationAndEvidence/14OutcomesMeasuresTrialsAHOS.pdf. [Accessed July 25, 2013].
8. K.L. Haywood, A.M. Garratt, and R. Lall EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: reliability, validity and responsiveness Qual Life Res 17 2008 475 483
9. J. Brazier, C. Czoski-Murray, and J. Roberts Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King's Health Questionnaire Med Decis Making 28 2008 113 126
10. T.H. Wagner, D.L. Patrick, and T.G. Bavendam Quality of life of persons with urinary incontinence: development of a new measure Urology 47 1996 67 71 discussion 71-2
11. D.L. Patrick, K.M. Khalaf, and R. Dmochowski Psychometric performance of the incontinence quality-of-life questionnaire among patients with overactive bladder and urinary incontinence Clin Ther 35 2013 836 845
12. L.A. Lenert, M.F. Rupnow, and C. Elnitsky Application of a disease-specific mapping function to estimate utility gains with effective treatment of schizophrenia Health Qual Life Outcomes 3 2005 57
13. W. Hollingworth, D. McKell-Redwood, L. Hampson, and C. Metcalfe Cost-utility analysis conducted alongside randomized controlled trials: are economic end points considered in sample size calculations and does it matter? Clin Trials 10 2013 43 53
14. A.E. Ades, G. Lu, and J.J. Madan Which health-related quality-of-life outcome when planning randomized trials: disease-specific or generic, or both? A common factor model Value Health 16 2013 185 194
15. G. Lu, J.E. Brazier, and A.E. Ades Mapping from disease-specific to generic health-related quality-of-life scales: a common factor model Value Health 16 2013 177 184
16. A. Wright, J. Hannon, E.J. Hegedus, and A.E. Kavchak Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) J Man Manip Ther 20 2012 160 166
17. I. Yalcin, and R.C. Bump Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence Am J Obstet Gynecol 189 2003 98 101
18. D.G. Tincello, R.K. Owen, M.C. Slack, and K.R. Abrams Validation of the Patient Global Impression scales for use in detrusor overactivity: secondary analysis of the RELAX study BJOG 120 2013 212 216
19. C. Tannenbaum, R. Agnew, and A. Benedetti Effectiveness of continence promotion for older women via community organisations: a cluster randomised trial BMJ Open 3 2013 e004135
20. C. Tannenbaum, J. Brouillette, and J. Michaud Responsiveness and clinical utility of the geriatric self-efficacy index for urinary incontinence J Am Geriatr Soc 57 2009 470 475
21. C. Tannenbaum, J. Brouillette, and N. Korner-Bitensky Creation and testing of the Geriatric Self-Efficacy Index for Urinary Incontinence J Am Geriatr Soc 56 2008 542 547
22. C. Tannenbaum, J. Brouillette, and J. Corcos Rating improvements in urinary incontinence: do patients and their physicians agree? Age Ageing 37 2008 379 383
23. S. Kay, K. Tolley, and D. Colayco Mapping EQ-5D utility scores from the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire among patients with neurogenic and idiopathic overactive bladder Value Health 16 2013 394 402
24. K. Desroziers, S. Aballea, and K. Maman Estimating EQ-5D and OAB-5D health state utilities for patients with overactive bladder Health Qual Life Outcomes 11 2013 200
25. J.E. Brazier, and J. Roberts The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12 Med Care 42 2004 851 859
26. G.W. Torrance, W. Furlong, D. Feeny, and M. Boyle Multi-attribute preference functions: Health Utilities Index Pharmacoeconomics 7 1995 503 520
27. N. Mittmann, K. Trakas, N. Risebrough, and B.A. Liu Utility scores for chronic conditions in a community-dwelling population Pharmacoeconomics 15 1999 369 376
28. K. Avery, J. Donovan, and T.J. Peters ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence Neurourol Urodyn 23 2004 322 330
29. S.J. Walters, and J.E. Brazier 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
30. S.J. Walters, M.J. Campbell, and R. Lall Design and analysis of trials with quality of life as an outcome: a practical guide J Biopharm Stat 11 2001 155 176
31. JE Brazier, Y.L. Yang, A. Tsuchiya, and D.L. Rowen A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures Eur J Health Econ 11 2010 215 225
32. A. Briggs Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters BMJ 321 2000 1362 1363