Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Outcome Measure Score Interpretation

Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 177-188

  Engel, Lisa ^a   Beaton, Dorcas E ^b,c   Touma, Zahi ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c INSTITUTE FOR WORK AND HEALTH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Change; Difference; Important; Methodology; Minimal important change; Outcomes assessment; Reproducibility of results

Indexed keywords

DETERIORATION; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; LIMIT OF QUANTITATION; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHORT FORM 36; STANDARDIZATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; RHEUMATOLOGY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; RHEUMATOLOGY;

EID: 85042230937     PISSN: 0889857X     EISSN: 15583163     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rdc.2018.01.011     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Guyatt, G.H., Osoba, D., Wu, A.W., et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77:4 (2002), 371–383.
2. Cronbach, L.J., Furby, L., How we should measure “change”: or should we?. Psychol Bull, 74(1), 1970, 68.
3. de Vet, H.C., Terwee, C.B., Mokkink, L.B., et al. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. 2011, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Wright, A., Hannon, J., Hegedus, E.J., et al. Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther 20:3 (2012), 160–166.
5. Smith-Forbes, E.V., Howell, D.M., Willoughby, J., et al. Specificity of the minimal clinically important difference of the Quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (QDASH) for distal upper extremity conditions. J Hand Ther 29:1 (2016), 81–88.
6. Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., Guyatt, G.H., Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:4 (1989), 407–415.
7. 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 14:2 (2002), 109–114.
8. Copay, A.G., Subach, B.R., Glassman, S.D., et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:5 (2007), 541–546.
9. 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.
10. Larsen, K.R., Voronovich, Z.A., Cook, P.F., et al. Addicted to constructs: science in reverse?. Addiction 108:9 (2013), 1532–1533.
11. Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J.N., et al. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology. Minimal clinically important difference. J Rheumatol 28:2 (2001), 400–405.
12. Wells, G., Beaton, D., Shea, B., et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28:2 (2001), 406–412.
13. Angst, F., Aeschlimann, A., Angst, J., The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol 82 (2017), 128–136.
14. Rai, S.K., Yazdany, J., Fortin, P.R., et al. Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important differences in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther, 17(1), 2015, 143.
15. Medina-Rosas, J., Al-Rayes, H., Moustafa, A.T., et al. Recent advances in the biologic therapy of lupus: the 10 most important areas to look for common pitfalls in clinical trials. Expert Opin Biol Ther 16:10 (2016), 1225–1238.
16. Touma, Z., Gladman, D.D., Current and future therapies for SLE: obstacles and recommendations for the development of novel treatments. Lupus Sci Med, 4(1), 2017.
17. Wyrwich, K., Norquist, J., Lenderking, W., et al., Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL). Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 22:3 (2013), 475–483.
18. Coon, C.D., Cappelleri, J.C., Interpreting change in scores on patient-reported outcome instruments. Ther Innov Regul Sci 50:1 (2016), 22–29.
19. Rodrigues, J., Mabvuure, N., Nikkhah, D., et al. Minimal important changes and differences in elective hand surgery. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 40:9 (2015), 900–912.
20. Revicki, D., Hays, R.D., Cella, D., et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:2 (2008), 102–109.
21. Terwee, C.B., Roorda, L.D., Dekker, J., et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63:5 (2010), 524–534.
22. Davis, A., Perruccio, A., Lohmander, L.S., Minimally clinically important improvement: all non-responders are not really non-responders an illustration from total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 20:5 (2012), 364–367.
23. de Vet, H.C., Foumani, M., Scholten, M.A., et al. Minimally important change values of a measurement instrument depend more on baseline values than on the type of intervention. J Clin Epidemiol 68:5 (2015), 518–524.
24. Franchignoni, F., Vercelli, S., Giordano, A., et al. Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44:1 (2014), 30–39.
25. Kosinski, M., Zhao, S.Z., Dedhiya, S., et al. Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 43:7 (2000), 1478–1487.
26. Santanello, N., Zhang, J., Seidenberg, B., et al. What are minimal important changes for asthma measures in a clinical trial?. Eur Respir J 14:1 (1999), 23–27.
27. Turner, D., Schünemann, H.J., Griffith, L.E., et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 63:1 (2010), 28–36.
28. Norman, G., Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Qual Life Res 12:3 (2003), 239–249.
29. 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 41:5 (2003), 582–592.
30. Beaton, D.E., Simple as possible? Or too simple?: possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med Care 41:5 (2003), 593–596.
31. Lassere, M., van der Heijde, D., Johnson, K.R., Foundations of the minimal clinically important difference for imaging. J Rheumatol 28:4 (2001), 890–891.
32. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist 74 (2009), 65132–65133.
33. Nantes, S.G., Strand, V., Su, J., et al. Comparison of the Sensitivity to Change of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and the Lupus Quality of Life Measure Using Various Definitions of Minimum Clinically Important Differences in Patients With Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 70:1 (2018), 125–133.
34. Erdogan, B.D., Leung, Y.Y., Pohl, C., et al. Minimal clinically important difference as applied in rheumatology: an OMERACT Rasch Working Group systematic review and critique. J Rheumatol 43:1 (2016), 194–202.
35. Rouquette, A., Blanchin, M., Sébille, V., et al. The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score. J Clin Epidemiol 67:4 (2014), 433–440.
36. Lee, M.K., Yost, K.J., McDonald, J.S., et al. Item response theory analysis to evaluate reliability and minimal clinically important change of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire in patients with severe disability due to back pain from vertebral compression fractures. Spine J 17 (2017), 821–829.
37. Schünemann, H.J., Akl, E.A., Guyatt, G.H., Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician's perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 4(1), 2006, 62.
38. de Vet, H.C., Terluin, B., Knol, D.L., et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied “minimally important change” values. J Clin Epidemiol 63:1 (2010), 37–45.
39. de Vet, H.C., Terwee, C.B., The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 63:7 (2010), 804–805.
40. Terwee, C.B., Roorda, L.D., Knol, D.L., et al. Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 62:10 (2009), 1062–1067.
41. de Vet, H.C., Terwee, C.B., Ostelo, R.W., et al. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 4(1), 2006, 54.
42. Beaton, D., Bombardier, C., Katz, J., et al. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54:12 (2001), 1204–1217.
43. Devilliers, H., Amoura, Z., Besancenot, J.-F., et al. Responsiveness of the 36-item short form health survey and the lupus quality of life questionnaire in SLE. Rheumatology 54:5 (2015), 940–949.
44. McElhone, K., Abbott, J., Sutton, C., et al. Sensitivity to change and minimal important differences of the LupusQoL in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 68:10 (2016), 1505–1513.
45. Juniper, E.F., Guyatt, G.H., Willan, A., et al. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 47:1 (1994), 81–87.
46. de Vet, H.C., Ostelo, R.W., Terwee, C.B., et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16:1 (2007), 131–142.
47. Mills, K.A., Naylor, J.M., Eyles, J.P., et al. Examining the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures for individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a model using the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score. J Rheumatol 43:2 (2016), 395–404.
48. Terwee, C., Dekker, F., Wiersinga, W., et al. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 12:4 (2003), 349–362.
49. Guyatt, G., Walter, S., Norman, G., Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 40:2 (1987), 171–178.
50. Schünemann, H.J., Guyatt, G.H., Commentary—goodbye M (C) ID! Hello MID, where do you come from?. Health Serv Res 40:2 (2005), 593–597.
51. Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., et al. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 16:1 (1998), 139–144.
52. Wu, J.S., “Important difference” for interpreting health-related quality of life outcome measures: important to whom?. Support Care Cancer 20 (2012), 429–431.