Literature DB >> 28093262

The anchor-based minimal important change, based on receiver operating characteristic analysis or predictive modeling, may need to be adjusted for the proportion of improved patients.

Berend Terluin1, Iris Eekhout2, Caroline B Terwee3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Patients have their individual minimal important changes (iMICs) as their personal benchmarks to determine whether a perceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL) change constitutes a (minimally) important change for them. We denote the mean iMIC in a group of patients as the "genuine MIC" (gMIC). The aims of this paper are (1) to examine the relationship between the gMIC and the anchor-based minimal important change (MIC), determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis or by predictive modeling; (2) to examine the impact of the proportion of improved patients on these MICs; and (3) to explore the possibility to adjust the MIC for the influence of the proportion of improved patients. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Multiple simulations of patient samples involved in anchor-based MIC studies with different characteristics of HRQOL (change) scores and distributions of iMICs. In addition, a real data set is analyzed for illustration.
RESULTS: The receiver operating characteristic-based and predictive modeling MICs equal the gMIC when the proportion of improved patients equals 0.5. The MIC is estimated higher than the gMIC when the proportion improved is greater than 0.5, and the MIC is estimated lower than the gMIC when the proportion improved is less than 0.5. Using an equation including the predictive modeling MIC, the log-odds of improvement, the standard deviation of the HRQOL change score, and the correlation between the HRQOL change score and the anchor results in an adjusted MIC reflecting the gMIC irrespective of the proportion of improved patients.
CONCLUSION: Adjusting the predictive modeling MIC for the proportion of improved patients assures that the adjusted MIC reflects the gMIC. LIMITATIONS: We assumed normal distributions and global perceived change scores that were independent on the follow-up score. Additionally, floor and ceiling effects were not taken into account.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adjusted minimal important change; Minimal important change; Predictive modeling; Present state bias; Proportion improved patients; Receiver operating characteristics

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28093262     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.015

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


  14 in total

1.  Estimates of minimal clinically important improvments vary with the responsiveness of the sample.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Maria I Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-11-06       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  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

3.  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

4.  How should minimally important change scores for the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure be interpreted? A validation using varied methods.

Authors:  L Howells; S Ratib; J R Chalmers; L Bradshaw; K S Thomas
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 9.302

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Which Oxford Knee Score level represents a satisfactory symptom state after undergoing a total knee replacement?

Authors:  Lina H Ingelsrud; Berend Terluin; Kirill Gromov; Andrew Price; David Beard; Anders Troelsen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 3.717

Review 9.  Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; John Devin Peipert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Assessing baseline dependency of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC): don't stratify on the baseline score!

Authors:  Berend Terluin; Ewa M Roos; Caroline B Terwee; Jonas B Thorlund; Lina H Ingelsrud
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.