PURPOSE: Interpretation guidelines are needed for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures' change scores to evaluate efficacy of an intervention and to communicate PRO results to regulators, patients, physicians, and providers. The 2009 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (hereafter referred to as the final FDA PRO Guidance) provides some recommendations for the interpretation of change in PRO scores as evidence of treatment efficacy. METHODS: This article reviews the evolution of the methods and the terminology used to describe and aid in the communication of meaningful PRO change score thresholds. RESULTS: Anchor- and distribution-based methods have played important roles, and the FDA has recently stressed the importance of cross-sectional patient global assessments of concept as anchor-based methods for estimation of the responder definition, which describes an individual-level treatment benefit. The final FDA PRO Guidance proposes the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of responses as a useful method to depict the effect of treatments across the study population. CONCLUSIONS: While CDFs serve an important role, they should not be a replacement for the careful investigation of a PRO's relevant responder definition using anchor-based methods and providing stakeholders with a relevant threshold for the interpretation of change over time.
PURPOSE: Interpretation guidelines are needed for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures' change scores to evaluate efficacy of an intervention and to communicate PRO results to regulators, patients, physicians, and providers. The 2009 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (hereafter referred to as the final FDA PRO Guidance) provides some recommendations for the interpretation of change in PRO scores as evidence of treatment efficacy. METHODS: This article reviews the evolution of the methods and the terminology used to describe and aid in the communication of meaningful PRO change score thresholds. RESULTS: Anchor- and distribution-based methods have played important roles, and the FDA has recently stressed the importance of cross-sectional patient global assessments of concept as anchor-based methods for estimation of the responder definition, which describes an individual-level treatment benefit. The final FDA PRO Guidance proposes the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of responses as a useful method to depict the effect of treatments across the study population. CONCLUSIONS: While CDFs serve an important role, they should not be a replacement for the careful investigation of a PRO's relevant responder definition using anchor-based methods and providing stakeholders with a relevant threshold for the interpretation of change over time.
Authors: Mirjam A G Sprangers; Carol M Moinpour; Timothy J Moynihan; Donald L Patrick; Dennis A Revicki Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: David Cella; David T Eton; Diane L Fairclough; Philip Bonomi; Anne E Heyes; Cheryl Silberman; Michael K Wolf; David H Johnson Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: David A T Werner; Margreth Grotle; Sasha Gulati; Ivar M Austevoll; Greger Lønne; Øystein P Nygaard; Tore K Solberg Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Albert W Wu; Galina Velikova; Caroline B Terwee; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn Schwartz; Dennis A Revicki; Carol M Moinpour; Lori D McLeod; Jessica C Lyons; William R Lenderking; Pamela S Hinds; Ron D Hays; Joanne Greenhalgh; Richard Gershon; David Feeny; Peter M Fayers; David Cella; Michael Brundage; Sara Ahmed; Neil K Aaronson; Zeeshan Butt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: James W Varni; Alan M Delamater; Korey K Hood; Jennifer K Raymond; Nancy T Chang; Kimberly A Driscoll; Jenise C Wong; Joyce P Yi-Frazier; Ellen K Grishman; Melissa A Faith; Sarah D Corathers; Jessica C Kichler; Jennifer L Miller; Elena M Doskey; Robert W Heffer; Don P Wilson Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jonathan L Berliner; Dane J Brodke; Vanessa Chan; Nelson F SooHoo; Kevin J Bozic Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Karon F Cook; Sally E Jensen; Benjamin D Schalet; Jennifer L Beaumont; Dagmar Amtmann; Susan Czajkowski; Darren A Dewalt; James F Fries; Paul A Pilkonis; Bryce B Reeve; Arthur A Stone; Kevin P Weinfurt; David Cella Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 6.437