Minimally important difference estimates and methods: A protocol

BMJ Open

Volumn 5, Issue 10, 2015, Pages

  Johnston, Bradley C ^a,b,c,d   Ebrahim, Shanil ^a,d,e   Carrasco Labra, Alonso ^d,f   Furukawa, Toshi A ^g   Patrick, Donald L ^h   Crawford, Mark W ^a   Hemmelgarn, Brenda R ⁱ   Schunemann, Holger J ^d   Guyatt, Gordon H ^d   Nesrallah, Gihad ^j,k,l  

^a HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^b HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

^g KYOTO UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^h UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^j HUMBER RIVER REGIONAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^k UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^l ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; KNOWLEDGE; METHODOLOGY; MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTION; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84945912280     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007953     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.
2. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, et al. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1961;4:561-71.
3. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
4. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, et al. Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:116.
5. Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary-goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res 2005;40:593-7.
6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.
7. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1283-93.
8. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al., Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371-83.
9. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, et al. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316:690-3.
10. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11:171-84.
11. Johnston BC, Patrick DL, Thorlund K, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses-part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:211.
12. Johnston BC, Bandayrel K, Friedrich JO, et al. Presentation of continuous outcomes in meta-analysis: a survey of clinicians' understanding and preferences. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; Suppl 1(212).
13. MAPI Research Trust. Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of LIfe Database (PROQOLID). Secondary Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of LIfe Database (PROQOLID). 2013. http://www.proqolid.org
14. Morse J. Designing funded qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Linclon YS, eds. Handbook for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994:220-35.
15. Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA 2014; 312:171-9.
16. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, et al. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010;340:c117.
17. Fallah A, Akl EA, Ebrahim S, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for single-level cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e43407.
18. Turner D, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol2010;63:28-36.
19. Turner D, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol2009;62:374-9.
20. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, et al. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:81-7.
21. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, da Costa BR, et al. New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:817-26.
22. Yalcin I, Patrick DL, Summers K, et al. Minimal clinically important differences in Incontinence Quality-of-Life scores in stress urinary incontinence. Urology 2006;67:1304-8.
23. Levine M, Ioannidis J, Haines T, Harm (observational studies). In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, et al., eds. Users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. McGraw-Hill, 2008:363-82.
24. Randolph A, Cook DJ, Guyatt G. Prognosis. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, et al., eds. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: a manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice: McGraw-Hill, 2008:509-22.
25. Furukawa TA, Jaeschke R, Cook D, et al. Measuring of patients' experience. In: Guyatt G, Drummond R, Meade MO, et al., eds. Users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 2008:249-72.
26. Akl E, Sun X, Busse JW, et al. Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid. J Clin Epidemiol2012;65:262-7.
27. Heppner PP, Kivlighan DM, Wampold BE. Research design in counseling. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1992.
28. Kaplan RM, Sacuzzo DP. Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. 4th edn. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1997.
29. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing interrater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420-8.
30. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 1998;17:101-10.