Interpreting Change in Scores on Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments

Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 22-29

  Coon, Cheryl D ^a   Cappelleri, Joseph C ^b  

^a Outcometrix   (United States)

^b PFIZER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical outcome assessment; clinically important difference; clinically important responder; conjoint analysis; minimal important difference; mixed methods; patient reported outcome; standard setting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SELF REPORT;

EID: 84952802417     PISSN: 21684790     EISSN: 21684804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2168479015622667     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. R.JaeschkeJ.SingerG.H.Guyatt. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–415.
2. E.LydickR.Epstein. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:221–226.
3. D.CellaM.BullingerC.ScottI.Barofsky. Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(4):384–392.
4. US Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist. 2006;71(23):5862–5863.
5. E.F.JuniperG.H.GuyattA.WillanL.E.Griffith. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(1):81–87.
6. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist. 2009;74(235):65132–65133.
7. K.W.WyrwichJ.M.NorquistW.R.LenderkingS.Acaster. Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(3):475–483.
8. J.C.CappelleriK.H.ZouA.G.BushmakinJ.M.J.AlvirD.AlemayehuT.Symonds. Patient-Reported Outcomes: Measurement, Implementation and Interpretation. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2013.
9. J.C.CappelleriA.G.Bushmakin. Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;23(5):460–483.
10. M.T.King. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:171–184.
11. P.MarquisO.ChassanyL.Abetz. A comprehensive strategy for the interpretation of quality-of-life data based on existing methods. Value Health. 2004;7:93–104.
12. L.D.McLeodC.D.CoonS.A.MartinS.E.FehnelR.D.Hays. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:163–169.
13. D.RevickiP.A.EricksonJ.A.SloanA.DueckH.GuessN.C.Santanello, and the Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. Interpreting and reporting results based on patient-reported outcomes. Value Health. 2007;10:S116–S124.
14. D.RevickiR.D.HaysD.CellaJ.Sloan. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109.
15. K.J.YostD.T.EtonS.F.GarciaD.Cella. Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(5):507–516.
16. C.GerlingerU.SchumacherT.FaustmannA.ColligsH.SchmitzC.Seitz. Defining a minimal clinically important difference for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain measured on a visual analog scale: analyses of two placebo-controlled, randomized trials. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(1):138.
17. D.E.StullR.WasiakN.Kreif. Validation of the SF-36 in patients with endometriosis. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(1):103–117.
18. D.OsobaG.RodriguesJ.MylesB.ZeeJ.Pater. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):139–144.
19. A.F.H.SmeltW.J.J.AssendelftC.B.TerweeM.D.FerrariJ.W.Blom. What is a clinically relevant change on the HIT-6 questionnaire? An estimation in a primary-care population of migraine patients. Cephalalgia. 2014;34(1):29–36.
20. J.T.FarrarJ.P.YoungL.LaMoreauxJ.L.WerthR.M.Poole. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149–158.
21. Lyrica [product labeling]. New York, NY: Pfizer Inc; 2013
22. C.M.MamoloA.G.BushmakinJ.C.Cappelleri. Application of the Itch Severity Score in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: clinically important difference and responder analyses. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015;26(2):121–123.
23. L.B.BurkeA.M.Trenacosti. Interpretation of PRO trial results to support FDA labelling claims: the regulator perspective. Presented at: International Society for Pharmacoecomomics and Outcomes Research 15th Annual International Meeting. May 15-19, 2010; Atlanta, GA.
24. D.CellaS.ChoiS.Garcia. Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment. Qual Life Res. 2014:2651–2661.
25. K.F.CookD.E.VictorsonD.CellaB.D.SchaletD.Miller. Creating meaningful cut-scores for Neuro-QOL measures of fatigue, physical functioning, and sleep disturbance using standard setting with patients and providers. Qual Life Res. 2014;24(3):575–589.
26. S.Messick. Test validity: a matter of consequence. Soc Indic Res. 1998;45(1-3):35–44.
27. K.F.CookM.A.KallenD.VictorsonD.Miller. How much change really matters? Development and comparison of two novel approaches to defining clinically important differences in fatigue scores. Qual Life Res. 2015; 24:157–158.
28. A.TashakkoriJ.Creswell. The new era of mixed methods. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1(1):3–8.
29. A.F.MohamedA.B.HauberF.R.JohnsonC.D.Coon. Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes. Patient. 2010;3(4):217–227.
30. C.D.CoonA.B.HauberA.F.MohamedL.D.McLeod. Using choice-format conjoint analysis to assign meaning to PRO scores. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19:126–127.
31. A.B.HauberA.F.MohamedF.Reed JohnsonO.OyelowoB.H.CurtisC.Coon. Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(5):701–709.
32. T.UryniakI.S.F.ChanV.V.Fedorov. Responder analyses—a PhRMA position paper. Stat Biopharm Res. 2011;3(3):476–487.
33. D.A.RevickiD.CellaR.D.HaysJ.A.SloanW.R.LenderkingN.K.Aaronson. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70.
34. R.D.HaysJ.M.Woolley. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality of life research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419–422.