Literature DB >> 10465315

Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample-size calculation.

C van Walraven1, J L Mahon, D Moher, C Bohm, A Laupacis.   

Abstract

The minimal important difference (MID) is the smallest benefit of treatment that would result in clinicians recommending it to their patients. The MID is necessary to calculate sample size for randomized clinical trials, but its chosen value is often arbitrary. This study set out to determine the practicability of surveying physicians to elicit the MID for clinical trial sample-size calculation. Using a mail survey, we elicited the MID of different physician specialties (family medicine, internal medicine, vascular surgery) for using propranolol to slow abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) growth assuming that propranolol was efficacious in this condition. We used different outcome measures (growth rate or proportion of patients requiring surgery) and different methods of data presentation for the proportion of patients requiring surgery (absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat). The MID varied significantly by physician specialty, experience with AAA and propranolol, and the method used to elicit the MID. Consequently, sample-size calculations using these various MIDs varied from 116 to 3015. Future attempts to elicit the MID need to consider carefully who is surveyed, how data are presented, and how opinions are elicited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10465315     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00050-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  17 in total

1.  The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?

Authors:  R D Hays; J M Woolley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Determination of the clinical importance of study results.

Authors:  Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Andreas Laupacis; Keith O'Rourke; Frank J Molnar; Jeffery Mahon; Karen B Y Chan; George Wells
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis.

Authors:  Dinesh Khanna; Daniel E Furst; Weng Kee Wong; Joel Tsevat; Philip J Clements; Grace S Park; Arnold E Postlethwaite; Mansoor Ahmed; Shaari Ginsburg; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Comparison of distribution- and anchor-based approaches to infer changes in health-related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors.

Authors:  Ravishankar Jayadevappa; Stanley Bruce Malkowicz; Marsha Wittink; Alan J Wein; Sumedha Chhatre
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Estimating minimally important difference (MID) in PROMIS pediatric measures using the scale-judgment method.

Authors:  David Thissen; Yang Liu; Brooke Magnus; Hally Quinn; Debbie S Gipson; Carlton Dampier; I-Chan Huang; Pamela S Hinds; David T Selewski; Bryce B Reeve; Heather E Gross; Darren A DeWalt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach.

Authors:  Henrica C W de Vet; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Caroline B Terwee; Nicole van der Roer; Dirk L Knol; Heleen Beckerman; Maarten Boers; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold.

Authors:  Bruce Barrett; Roger Brown; Marlon Mundt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Minimally important difference in diffuse systemic sclerosis: results from the D-penicillamine study.

Authors:  D Khanna; D E Furst; R D Hays; G S Park; W K Wong; J R Seibold; M D Mayes; B White; F F Wigley; M Weisman; W Barr; L Moreland; T A Medsger; V D Steen; R W Martin; D Collier; A Weinstein; E V Lally; J Varga; S R Weiner; B Andrews; M Abeles; P J Clements
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 19.103

9.  Nocturnal oxygen therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a survey of Canadian respirologists.

Authors:  Yves Lacasse; Frédéric Sériès; Sylvie Martin; François Maltais
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.409

Review 10.  Clinical trials in critical care: can a Bayesian approach enhance clinical and scientific decision making?

Authors:  Christopher J Yarnell; Darryl Abrams; Matthew R Baldwin; Daniel Brodie; Eddy Fan; Niall D Ferguson; May Hua; Purnema Madahar; Danny F McAuley; Laveena Munshi; Gavin D Perkins; Gordon Rubenfeld; Arthur S Slutsky; Hannah Wunsch; Robert A Fowler; George Tomlinson; Jeremy R Beitler; Ewan C Goligher
Journal:  Lancet Respir Med       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 30.700

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.