Literature DB >> 11151395

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

R D Hays1, J M Woolley.   

Abstract

It is generally believed that small differences in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) may be statistically significant yet clinically unimportant. The concept of the minimal clinically meaningful difference (MCID) has been proposed to refer to the smallest difference in a HR-QOL score that is considered to be worthwhile or clinically important. However, there is danger in oversimplification in asking the question: what is the MCID on this HR-QOL instrument? We argue that the attempt to define a single MCID is problematic for a number of reasons and recommend caution in the search for the MCID holy grail. Specifically, absolute thresholds are suspect because they ignore the cost or resources required to produce a change in HR-QOL. In addition, there are several practical problems in estimating the MCID, including: (i) the estimated magnitude varies depending on the distributional index and the external standard or anchor; (ii) the amount of change might depend on the direction of change; and (iii) the meaning of change depends on where you start (baseline value).

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11151395     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200018050-00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  12 in total

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

Authors:  C van Walraven; J L Mahon; D Moher; C Bohm; A Laupacis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II.

Authors:  G Samsa; D Edelman; M L Rothman; G R Williams; J Lipscomb; D Matchar
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Using health status measures in the hospital setting: from acute care to 'outcomes management'.

Authors:  D Lansky; J B Butler; F T Waller
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Responsiveness to change: an aspect of validity, not a separate dimension.

Authors:  R D Hays; D Hadorn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  A power primer.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 17.737

6.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Understanding changes in health status. Is the floor phenomenon merely the last step of the staircase?

Authors:  D W Baker; R D Hays; R H Brook
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; J Singer; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-12

9.  Similarity/equivalence trials for combination vaccines.

Authors:  W C Blackwelder
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1995-05-31       Impact factor: 5.691

10.  A quality of life study in five hundred and eighty-one duodenal ulcer patients. Maintenance versus intermittent treatment with nizatidine.

Authors:  P Rampal; C Martin; P Marquis; J E Ware; S Bonfils
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl       Date:  1994
View more
  120 in total

Review 1.  ASCPRO recommendations for the assessment of fatigue as an outcome in clinical trials.

Authors:  Andrea M Barsevick; Charles S Cleeland; Donald C Manning; Ann M O'Mara; Bryce B Reeve; Jane A Scott; Jeff A Sloan
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.612

2.  Minimal clinically important differences of disease activity indices in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus.

Authors:  Hermine I Brunner; Gloria C Higgins; Marisa S Klein-Gitelman; Sivia K Lapidus; Judyann C Olson; Karen Onel; Marilynn Punaro; Jun Ying; Edward H Giannini
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.794

3.  Responsiveness of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in patients with femoral neck fractures.

Authors:  Carl Johan Hedbeck; Jan Tidermark; Sari Ponzer; Richard Blomfeldt; Gunnar Bergström
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.

Authors:  Lori D McLeod; Joseph C Cappelleri; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 7.045

Review 5.  The clinical importance of quality-of-life scores in patients with skull base tumors: a meta-analysis and review of the literature.

Authors:  Moran Amit; Avraham Abergel; Dan M Fliss; Ziv Gil
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.075

6.  Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) in Assessing Outcomes of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Authors:  Elina A Stefanovics; Robert A Rosenheck; Karen M Jones; Grant Huang; John H Krystal
Journal:  Psychiatr Q       Date:  2018-03

7.  A randomized trial of weekly symptom telemonitoring in advanced lung cancer.

Authors:  Susan E Yount; Nan Rothrock; Michael Bass; Jennifer L Beaumont; Deborah Pach; Thomas Lad; Jyoti Patel; Maria Corona; Rebecca Weiland; Katherine Del Ciello; David Cella
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 3.612

8.  Affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes associated with a false positive ovarian cancer screening test result.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-04-21

9.  Dependence of the minimal clinically important improvement on the baseline value is a consequence of floor and ceiling effects and not different expectations by patients.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Use of formal and informal mental health resources by cancer survivors: differences between rural and nonrural survivors and a preliminary test of the theory of planned behavior.

Authors:  Michael A Andrykowski; Jessica L Burris
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.