Shanil Ebrahim1,2,3, Kelsey Vercammen4, Arunima Sivanand5, Gordon H Guyatt2,6, Alonso Carrasco-Labra2,7, Ricardo M Fernandes8, Mark W Crawford9, Gihad Nesrallah10,11,12, Bradley C Johnston13,2,9,14. 1. Systematic Overviews through advancing Research Technology (SORT), Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Research Institute, and. 2. Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and. 3. Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Medicine, and Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 7. Evidence-Based Dentistry Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Chile, Independencia, Santiago, Chile. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Santa Maria Hospital, Lisboa, Portugal. 9. Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10. Nephrology Program, Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 11. Division of Nephrology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. 12. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and. 13. Systematic Overviews through advancing Research Technology (SORT), Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Research Institute, and bradley.johnston@sickkids.ca. 14. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
CONTEXT: No study has characterized and appraised all anchor-based minimally important differences (MIDs) associated with patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments in pediatric studies. OBJECTIVE: To complete a comprehensive systematic survey and appraisal of published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments used in children. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO (1989 to February 11, 2015). STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs among PROs used in pediatric care. DATA EXTRACTION: All pertinent data items related to the characteristics of PRO instruments, anchors, and MIDs. RESULTS: Of 4179 unique citations, 30 studies (including 32 cohorts) proved eligible and reported on 28 unique PROs (8 generic, 13 disease-specific, 5 symptoms-specific, 2 function-specific), with 9 (32%) classified as patient-reported, 11 (39%) proxy-reported, and 8 (29%) both patient- and proxy-reported. Of the 30 studies, we rated 14 (44%) as providing highly credible estimates of the MID. Most cohorts (n = 20, 62%) recorded patients' direct response to the target PRO and the use of an independent standard of comparison (n = 25, 78%). Most, however, failed to effectively report measurement properties of the anchor (n = 24, 75%). LIMITATIONS: We have not yet addressed the measurement properties of instrument to measure credibility; our search was restricted to 3 electronic sources, and we used a single data abstractor. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found 28 PROs that have been developed for children, with fewer than half providing credible estimates. Clinicians, clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers seeking to effectively summarize and interpret results of studies addressing PROs in child health are likely to find our comprehensive compendium of MIDs of use, both in providing best estimates of MIDs and identifying credible estimates.
CONTEXT: No study has characterized and appraised all anchor-based minimally important differences (MIDs) associated with patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments in pediatric studies. OBJECTIVE: To complete a comprehensive systematic survey and appraisal of published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments used in children. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO (1989 to February 11, 2015). STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs among PROs used in pediatric care. DATA EXTRACTION: All pertinent data items related to the characteristics of PRO instruments, anchors, and MIDs. RESULTS: Of 4179 unique citations, 30 studies (including 32 cohorts) proved eligible and reported on 28 unique PROs (8 generic, 13 disease-specific, 5 symptoms-specific, 2 function-specific), with 9 (32%) classified as patient-reported, 11 (39%) proxy-reported, and 8 (29%) both patient- and proxy-reported. Of the 30 studies, we rated 14 (44%) as providing highly credible estimates of the MID. Most cohorts (n = 20, 62%) recorded patients' direct response to the target PRO and the use of an independent standard of comparison (n = 25, 78%). Most, however, failed to effectively report measurement properties of the anchor (n = 24, 75%). LIMITATIONS: We have not yet addressed the measurement properties of instrument to measure credibility; our search was restricted to 3 electronic sources, and we used a single data abstractor. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found 28 PROs that have been developed for children, with fewer than half providing credible estimates. Clinicians, clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers seeking to effectively summarize and interpret results of studies addressing PROs in child health are likely to find our comprehensive compendium of MIDs of use, both in providing best estimates of MIDs and identifying credible estimates.
Authors: Bradley C Johnston; Roah Merdad; Diana Sherifali; Maryam Kebbe; Catherine S Birken; Annick Buchholz; Long Ge; Nicole D Gehring; Stasia Hadjiyannakis; Jill Hamilton; Dawn Hatanaka; Mélanie Henderson; Tracy Lebel; Sarah A Moore; Katherine M Morrison; Ximena Ramos Salas; Meghan Sebastianski; Ian S Zenlea; Geoff D C Ball Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2022-03-01
Authors: Penny V Corkum; Graham J Reid; Wendy A Hall; Roger Godbout; Robyn Stremler; Shelly K Weiss; Reut Gruber; Manisha Witmans; Christine T Chambers; Esmot Ara Begum; Pantelis Andreou; Gabrielle Rigney Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-03-26