Minimal important difference to infer changes in health-related quality of life—a systematic review

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 89, Issue , 2017, Pages 188-198

  Jayadevappa, Ravishankar ^a,b,c,d   Cook, Ratna ^a   Chhatre, Sumedha ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Anchor based; Distribution based; Health related quality of life; Minimal clinically important difference; Minimal important difference; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

CALCULATION; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; EFFECT SIZE; ENDOCRINE DISEASE; EYE DISEASE; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASE; GENERAL ASPECTS OF DISEASE; HEMATOLOGIC DISEASE; HEMATOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASM; MEDLINE; MENTAL DISEASE; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; MINIMAL IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; ONCOLOGY; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PEDIATRICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; RESPIRATORY TRACT DISEASE; REVIEW; RHEUMATIC DISEASE; SKIN DISEASE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UROGENITAL TRACT DISEASE;

HUMANS; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 85026375037     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.009     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Barrett, B., Brown, D., Mundt, M., Brown, R., Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making 25 (2005), 250–261.
2. Crosby, R.D., Kolotkin, R.L., Williams, R., Defining clinically meaningful change in health related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56 (2003), 395–407.
3. Jeschke, R., Singer, J., Guyatt, G.H., Measurement of health status-ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10 (1989), 407–415.
4. Juniper, E.F., Guyatt, G.H., Willan, A., Griffith, L.E., Determining a minimal important change in disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 47 (1994), 81–87.
5. Norman, G.R., Sridhar, F.G., Guyatt, G.H., Walter, S.D., Relation of distribution-and anchor based approaches in interpretation of changes in health related quality of life. Med Care 39 (2001), 1039–1047.
6. van Walraven, C., Mahon, J.L., Moher, D., Bohm, C., Laupacis, A., Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample-size calculation. J Clin Epidemiol 52 (1999), 717–723.
7. Revicki, D., Hays, R.D., Cella, D., Sloan, J., Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 68 (2008), 102–109.
8. Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C.C., Snyder, C.F., Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin 52 (2007), 278–300.
9. Valderas, J.M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargus, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C.E., Halyard, M.Y., et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 17 (2008), 179–193.
10. Beaton, D.E., Boers, M., Wells, G.A., Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 14 (2002), 109–114.
11. Coeytaux, R.R., Kaufman, J.S., Chao, R., Mann, J.D., DeVellis, R.F., Four methods of estimating the minimal important difference score were compared to establish a clinically significant change in Headache Impact Test. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006), 374–380.
12. Jordan, K., Dunn, K.M., Lewis, M., Croft, P., A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006), 45–51.
13. Redelmeier, D.A., Guyatt, G.H., Goldstein, R.S., Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol 49 (1996), 1215–1219.
14. Wyrwich, K.W., Tierney, W.M., Babu, A.N., Kroenke, K., Wolinsky, F.D., A comparison of clinically important differences in health related quality of life for patients with chronic lung disease, asthma, or heart disease. Health Serv Res 40 (2005), 577–597.
15. King, M.T., A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11:2 (2011), 171–184.
16. Rai, S.K., Wazdany, J., Fortin, P.R., Avina-Zubieta, J.A., Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important difference in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther, 17(1), 2015, 143.
17. McGlothlin, A.E., Lewis, R.J., Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA 312 (2014), 1342–1343.
18. Guyatt, G.H., Osoba, D., Wu, A.W., Wyrwich, K.W., Norman, G.R., Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77 (2002), 371–383.
19. Wyrwich, K.W., Tirney, W.M., Wolinsky, F.D., Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52 (1999), 861–873.
20. Copay, A.G., Subach, B.R., Glassman, S.D., Polly, D.W. Jr., Schuler, T.C., Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:5 (2007), 541–546.
21. Cohen, J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, Hillsadale, NJ.
22. Anastasi, A., Urbina, S., Psychological testing. 7tn ed, 1997, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
23. Bonniaud, V., Bryant, D., Parratte, B., Guyatt, G., Qualiveen, a urinary-disorder specific instrument: 0.5 corresponds to the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 61 (2008), 505–510.
24. Terwee, C.B., Mokkink, L.B., Knol, D.L., Ostelo, R.W., Bouter, L.M., de Vet, H.C., Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 21 (2012), 651–657.
25. Mokkink, L.B., Terwee, C.B., Patrick, D.L., Alonso, G., Stratford, P.W., Knol, D.L., et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 737–745.
26. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1006–1012.
27. Horvath, K., Aschermann, Z., Acs, P., Deli, G., Janszky, J., Komoly, S., et al. Minimal clinically important difference on the motor examination part of MDS-UPDRS. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 21 (2015), 1421–1426.
28. Walters, S.J., Brazier, J.E., 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.
29. Gyatt, G., Schunemann, H., How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients?. Qual Life Res 16 (2007), 1097–1105.
30. Maringwa, J., Quinten, C., King, M., Rinjash, J., Osoba, D., Coens, C., et al. Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. Ann Oncol 22 (2011), 2107–2112.
31. Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., Poter, J., Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related-quality of life score. J Clin Oncol 16 (1998), 139–144.
32. Lauridsen, H.H., Hartvigsen, J., Manniche, C., Korsholm, L., Nilsson, G., Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Muskuloskelet Discord, 7, 2006, 82.
33. Eton, D.T., Cella, D., Yost, K.J., Yount, S.E., Peterman, A.H., Neuberg, D.S., et al. A combination of distribution-and anchor based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004), 898–910.
34. Barrett, B., Brown, R., Mundt, M., Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold. Qual Life Res 17 (2008), 75–85.
35. Chen, R.C., Clark, J.A., Talcott, J.A., Individualizing quality-of-life outcomes reporting: how localized prostate cancer treatments affect patients with different levels of baseline urinary, bowel, and sexual function. J Clin Oncol 27 (2009), 1–13.
36. Jaeschke, R., Guyatt, G.H., Keller, J., Singer, J., Interpreting changes in quality-of-life score in N or 1 randomized trials. Control Clin Trials 12 (1991), 226S–233S.
37. Kulkarni, A.V., Distribution and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the hydrocephalus outcome questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006), 176–184.
38. Lemieux, J., Beaton, D.E., Hogg-Johnson, S., Bordeleau, L.J., Goodwin, P.J., Three methods for minimally important difference: no relationship was found with the net proportion of patients improving. J Clin Epidemiol 60 (2007), 448–455.
39. Norman, G.R., Sloan, J.A., Wyrwich, K.W., Interpretation of changes in health related quality of life-the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41 (2003), 582–592.
40. Wells, G., Beaton, D., Shea, B., Boers, M., Simon, L., Strand, V., et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28 (2001), 406–412.
41. Patrick, D.L., Chiang, Y.P., Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations. Med Care, 38, 2000 II-14–II-25.
42. Schmitt, J.S., Fabio Di, R.P., Reliable change minimum important difference proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004), 1008–1018.
43. Chuang, L.H., Garratt, A., Brealey, S., Comparative responsiveness and minimal change of the knee quality of life 26-item (KQoL-26) Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 22 (2013), 2461–2475.
44. Kazis, L.E., Anderson, S.J., Meenan, R.F., Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27 (1989), S178–S189.
45. Wyrwich, K.W., Minimal important difference threshold and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection?. J Biopharm Stat 14:1 (2004), 97–110.
46. Liang, M.H., Longitudinal constuct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instrument. Med Care, 38, 2000 II-84–II-90.
47. Wright, A., Hannon, J., Hegedus, E.J., Kavchak, A.E., Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther 20:3 (2012), 160–166.
48. Polson, K., Reid, D., McNair, P.J., Larmer, P., Responsiveness, minimal important difference and minimal detectable change scores of the shortened disability arm shoulder hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Man Ther 15 (2013), 404–407.
49. Fayers, P.M., Machin, D., Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. 2000, Wiley, Chichester.
50. Cella, D., Eton, D.T., Fairclough, D.L., Bonomi, P., Heyes, A.E., Silberman, C., et al. What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. J Clin Epidemiol 55 (2002), 285–295.
51. Cella, D., Eton, D.T., Lai, J., Peterman, A.H., Merkel, D.E., Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive clinically important differences on the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manage 24 (2002), 547–561.