Literature DB >> 17934093

Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean?

Tore K Kvien1, Turid Heiberg, Kåre B Hagen.   

Abstract

An increasing focus has over recent years been directed to the use of categorical endpoints to define response, i.e. to define cut-points for important improvement and/or acceptable clinical state. The levels of Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) are typically defined according to the patients perception of what is an important improvement. It can be defined as the smallest change in measurement that signifies an important improvement. MCII signifies an improvement of relevance in a clinical trial, or the minimal meaningful change at an individual level. The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) may reflect either an improvement or a worsening. Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) has been defined as the highest level of symptom beyond which patients consider themselves well. Cut-points for MCII and PASS are usually identified through two different statistical approaches. The 75th percentage approach identifies the cut-point corresponding to the 75 percentile of the scores for improvement in patients who report an important improvement by the anchoring question. Applying receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves allows for choosing the threshold that is the best compromise between sensitivity and specificity for each outcome criterion. The identified cut-points for MCII and PASS may easily be incorporated as endpoints in clinical trials, and will provide information about the proportion of patients that achieve an improvement exceeding the level accepted as MCII and achieve a state accepted as PASS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17934093      PMCID: PMC2095292          DOI: 10.1136/ard.2007.079798

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis        ISSN: 0003-4967            Impact factor:   19.103


  11 in total

Review 1.  Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda.

Authors:  G Wells; J Anderson; D Beaton; N Bellamy; M Boers; C Bombardier; F Breedveld; A Carr; A Cranney; M Dougados; D Felson; J Kirwan; M Schiff; B Shea; L Simon; J Smolen; V Strand; P Tugwell; P van Riel; V A Welch
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.666

Review 2.  Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods.

Authors:  G Wells; D Beaton; B Shea; M Boers; L Simon; V Strand; P Brooks; P Tugwell
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.666

3.  It's good to feel better but it's better to feel good.

Authors:  Maxime Dougados
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.666

Review 4.  Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues.

Authors:  Florence Tubach; George A Wells; Philippe Ravaud; Maxime Dougados
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.666

5.  Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients.

Authors:  Florence Tubach; Maxime Dougados; Bruno Falissard; Gabriel Baron; Isabelle Logeart; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-08-15

6.  Radiological damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis on sustained remission.

Authors:  G Cohen; L Gossec; M Dougados; A Cantagrel; P Goupille; J P Daures; N Rincheval; B Combe
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2006-08-25       Impact factor: 19.103

7.  Stability of the patient acceptable symptomatic state over time in outcome criteria in ankylosing spondylitis.

Authors:  Florence Tubach; Thao Pham; Johan F Skomsvoll; Knut Mikkelsen; Olav Bjørneboe; Philippe Ravaud; Maxime Dougados; Tore K Kvien
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-12-15

8.  Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders.

Authors:  Florence Tubach; Philippe Ravaud; Dorcas Beaton; Maarten Boers; Claire Bombardier; David T Felson; Desireé van der Heijde; George Wells; Maxime Dougados
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.666

9.  Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state.

Authors:  F Tubach; P Ravaud; G Baron; B Falissard; I Logeart; N Bellamy; C Bombardier; D Felson; M Hochberg; D van der Heijde; M Dougados
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-05-06       Impact factor: 19.103

10.  Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement.

Authors:  F Tubach; P Ravaud; G Baron; B Falissard; I Logeart; N Bellamy; C Bombardier; D Felson; M Hochberg; D van der Heijde; M Dougados
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-06-18       Impact factor: 19.103

View more
  67 in total

1.  How much does the Dallas Pain Questionnaire score have to improve to indicate that patients with chronic low back pain feel better or well?

Authors:  M Marty; D Courvoisier; V Foltz; G Mahieu; C Demoulin; A Gierasimowicz; M Norberg; P de Goumoëns; C Cedraschi; S Rozenberg; S Genevay
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Validity of the French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain patients: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Stéphane Genevay; Marc Marty; Delphine S Courvoisier; Violaine Foltz; Geneviève Mahieu; Christophe Demoulin; Agnieszka Gierasimowicz Fontana; Michael Norberg; Pierre de Goumoëns; Christine Cedraschi; Sylvie Rozenberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Statistics In Brief: Minimum Clinically Important Difference-Availability of Reliable Estimates.

Authors:  Mitchell Maltenfort; Claudio Díaz-Ledezma
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Clinical improvement and satisfaction after total joint replacement: a prospective 12-month evaluation on the patients' perspective.

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Franco M Impellizzeri; Ulrich Lenze; Vanessa Wellauer; Rüdiger von Eisenhart-Rothe; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Patient reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials.

Authors:  Ana-Maria Orbai; Clifton O Bingham
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.592

Review 6.  Are all outcomes in chronic heart failure rated equally? An argument for a patient-centred approach to outcome assessment.

Authors:  Sungwon Chang; Phillip J Newton; Sally Inglis; Tim Luckett; Henry Krum; Peter Macdonald; Patricia M Davidson
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.214

Review 7.  [Value-based medicine for glaucoma].

Authors:  C Hirneiss; A Kampik; A S Neubauer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 8.  Money matters: exploiting the data from outcomes research for quality improvement initiatives.

Authors:  Franco M Impellizzeri; Mario Bizzini; Michael Leunig; Nicola A Maffiuletti; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Improvement following total knee replacement surgery: Exploring preoperative symptoms and change in preoperative symptoms.

Authors:  Ernest R Vina; Michael J Hannon; C Kent Kwoh
Journal:  Semin Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  Identification of cut-points in commonly used hip osteoarthritis-related outcome measures that define the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS).

Authors:  Alicia J Emerson Kavchak; Chad Cook; Eric J Hegedus; Alexis A Wright
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 2.631

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.