OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact on a responder type analysis of using three published methods to obtain the minimally important difference (MID) on the conclusion of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using data from an RCT of supportive-expressive group therapy (SEGT-intervention) vs. standard care (control) in women with metastatic breast cancer, we measured individual responsiveness to change according to three levels of predefined MID (0.2 SD, 0.5 SD, and 1 standard error of measurement) of the following six validated questionnaires: Profile of Mood States, Impact of Event Scale, Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale, EORTC Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core-30, Mental Adjustment to Cancer, and a pain visual analog scale. The proportion of women improved by SEGT and the number needed to treat according to three levels of MID were calculated. RESULTS: There was no consistent difference in the net proportion of women improving with the SEGT vs. control arm according to the three different levels of MID. CONCLUSION: The choice between different levels of distribution-based MID did not make an important difference in the net proportion of women improving with the SEGT. Future research should compare MID derived from clinical anchors, in particular patient opinions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact on a responder type analysis of using three published methods to obtain the minimally important difference (MID) on the conclusion of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using data from an RCT of supportive-expressive group therapy (SEGT-intervention) vs. standard care (control) in women with metastatic breast cancer, we measured individual responsiveness to change according to three levels of predefined MID (0.2 SD, 0.5 SD, and 1 standard error of measurement) of the following six validated questionnaires: Profile of Mood States, Impact of Event Scale, Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale, EORTC Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core-30, Mental Adjustment to Cancer, and a pain visual analog scale. The proportion of women improved by SEGT and the number needed to treat according to three levels of MID were calculated. RESULTS: There was no consistent difference in the net proportion of women improving with the SEGT vs. control arm according to the three different levels of MID. CONCLUSION: The choice between different levels of distribution-based MID did not make an important difference in the net proportion of women improving with the SEGT. Future research should compare MID derived from clinical anchors, in particular patient opinions.
Authors: Julie Lemieux; Dorcas E Beaton; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Louise J Bordeleau; Jon Hunter; Pamela J Goodwin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Tito R Mendoza; Laura Sit; Steven Passik; Howard I Scher; Charles Cleeland; Ethan Basch Journal: Pain Med Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Tim Luckett; Phyllis N Butow; Madeleine T King; Mayumi Oguchi; Gaynor Heading; Nadine A Hackl; Nicole Rankin; Melanie A Price Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 3.603
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
Authors: Jennifer C Lai; Dorry L Segev; Charles E McCulloch; Kenneth E Covinsky; Jennifer L Dodge; Sandy Feng Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Joakim Nordanstig; Jan Karlsson; Monica Pettersson; Christine Wann-Hansson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Daniel Y T Fong; Judy W C Ho; Bryant P H Hui; Antoinette M Lee; Duncan J Macfarlane; Sharron S K Leung; Ester Cerin; Wynnie Y Y Chan; Ivy P F Leung; Sharon H S Lam; Aliki J Taylor; Kar-keung Cheng Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-01-30