Literature DB >> 25913670

Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis.

Berend Terluin1, Iris Eekhout2, Caroline B Terwee2, Henrica C W de Vet2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To present a new method to estimate a "minimal important change" (MIC) of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scales, based on predictive modeling, and to compare its performance with the MIC based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. To illustrate how the new method deals with variables that modify the MIC across subgroups. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: The new method uses logistic regression analysis and identifies the change score associated with a likelihood ratio of 1 as the MIC. Simulation studies were conducted to investigate under which distributional circumstances both methods produce concordant or discordant results and whether the methods differ in accuracy and precision.
RESULTS: The "predictive MIC" and the ROC-based MIC were identical when the variances of the change scores in the improved and not-improved groups were equal and the distributions were normal or oppositely skewed. The predictive MIC turned out to be more precise than the ROC-based MIC. The predictive MIC allowed for the testing and estimation of modifying factors such as baseline severity.
CONCLUSION: In many situations, the newly described MIC based on predictive modeling yields the same value as the ROC-based MIC but with significantly greater precision. This advantage translates to increased statistical power in MIC studies.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Change scores; Health-related quality of life; Likelihood ratio; Minimal important change; Predictive modeling; ROC method

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25913670     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.015

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


  22 in total

1.  Minimal Important Change and Minimal Detectable Change in Activities of Daily Living in Community-Living Older People.

Authors:  J J Suijker; M van Rijn; G Ter Riet; E P Moll van Charante; S E de Rooij; B M Buurman
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 4.075

2.  The minimal important change for the EQ VAS based on the SF-36 health transition item: observations from 25772 spine surgery procedures.

Authors:  Anders Joelson; Fredrik Nerelius; Freyr Gauti Sigmundsson; Jan Karlsson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 3.440

3.  What Are the Minimally Important Changes of Four Commonly Used Patient-reported Outcome Measures for 36 Hand and Wrist Condition-Treatment Combinations?

Authors:  Lisa Hoogendam; Jaimy Emerentiana Koopman; Yara Eline van Kooij; Reinier Feitz; Caroline Anna Hundepool; Chao Zhou; Harm Pieter Slijper; Ruud Willem Selles; Robbert Maarten Wouters
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Minimally important change, measurement error, and responsiveness for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score.

Authors:  Maria C Cöster; Anna Nilsdotter; Lars Brudin; Ann Bremander
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-02-18       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  Measurement properties of the musculoskeletal health questionnaire (MSK-HQ): a between country comparison.

Authors:  David Høyrup Christiansen; Gareth McCray; Trine Nøhr Winding; Johan Hviid Andersen; Kent Jacob Nielsen; Sven Karstens; Jonathan C Hill
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 3.186

6.  Minimal important differences for the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and the Forgotten Joint Score-12 in total knee arthroplasty patients.

Authors:  N Holtz; D F Hamilton; J M Giesinger; B Jost; K Giesinger
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Exploration of the methods of establishing the minimum clinical important difference based on anchor and its application in the quality of life measurement scale QLICP-ES (V2.0) for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Dandan Ren; Ting Wu; Chonghua Wan; Gaofeng Li; Yanbo Qi; Yujing Fang; Jiudi Zhong
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  The minimal perceived change: a formal model of the responder definition according to the patient's meaning of change for patient-reported outcome data analysis and interpretation.

Authors:  Antoine Vanier; Véronique Sébille; Myriam Blanchin; Jean-Benoit Hardouin
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Responsiveness and minimal important change of the QuickDASH and PSFS when used among patients with shoulder pain.

Authors:  Tarjei Rysstad; Margreth Grotle; Lars Petter Klokk; Anne Therese Tveter
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee Score and the Forgotten Joint Score at 1 year after total knee replacement.

Authors:  Lina H Ingelsrud; Ewa M Roos; Berend Terluin; Kirill Gromov; Henrik Husted; Anders Troelsen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.