Ravishankar Jayadevappa1, Ratna Cook2, Sumedha Chhatre3. 1. Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Electronic address: jravi@mail.med.upenn.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to assess the usability of minimal important difference (MID) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for measuring meaningful changes in disease-specific and generic health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes in patient-centered care. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We adopted a two-step literature review process. First, we used PubMed and Google scholar to identify a broad range of search terms. Next, we searched OVID Medline, JSTOR, and PubMed for terms "MID," and "MCID." We excluded non-English language studies, articles older than 1995, those not related to generic- and disease-specific HRQoL measures, and protocols of future studies. Studies were grouped according to generic- and disease-specific measures. We assessed MID or MCID calculation methods, effect sizes, estimated values, and significance. RESULTS: Eighty articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Our synthesis provides a comprehensive assessment of MID or MCID for 10 generic-specific and 80 disease-specific instruments. We observed a lack of consistency in the application of methods for computing MID or MCID for generic and disease-specific HRQoL measures. Only 43 (54%) studies used both anchor and distribution methods to elicit MID or MCID. Thirty-four articles estimated MID values only, whereas 47 articles estimated MCID. CONCLUSION: The anchor-based method yields conservative estimates of MID or MCID, compared to the distribution-based method. The distribution method does not take into account patient perspectives and should be accompanied by anchor method while computing MID. The MID should be interpreted with caution, and available estimates for a particular instrument must be used. This will help in integrating the MID estimates into the overall research or clinical plan for a specific context.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to assess the usability of minimal important difference (MID) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for measuring meaningful changes in disease-specific and generic health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes in patient-centered care. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We adopted a two-step literature review process. First, we used PubMed and Google scholar to identify a broad range of search terms. Next, we searched OVID Medline, JSTOR, and PubMed for terms "MID," and "MCID." We excluded non-English language studies, articles older than 1995, those not related to generic- and disease-specific HRQoL measures, and protocols of future studies. Studies were grouped according to generic- and disease-specific measures. We assessed MID or MCID calculation methods, effect sizes, estimated values, and significance. RESULTS: Eighty articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Our synthesis provides a comprehensive assessment of MID or MCID for 10 generic-specific and 80 disease-specific instruments. We observed a lack of consistency in the application of methods for computing MID or MCID for generic and disease-specific HRQoL measures. Only 43 (54%) studies used both anchor and distribution methods to elicit MID or MCID. Thirty-four articles estimated MID values only, whereas 47 articles estimated MCID. CONCLUSION: The anchor-based method yields conservative estimates of MID or MCID, compared to the distribution-based method. The distribution method does not take into account patient perspectives and should be accompanied by anchor method while computing MID. The MID should be interpreted with caution, and available estimates for a particular instrument must be used. This will help in integrating the MID estimates into the overall research or clinical plan for a specific context.
Keywords:
Anchor based; Distribution based; Health-related quality of life; Minimal clinically important difference; Minimal important difference; Prostate cancer
Authors: Anne M Fitzpatrick; Stanley J Szefler; David T Mauger; Brenda R Phillips; Loren C Denlinger; Wendy C Moore; Ronald L Sorkness; Sally E Wenzel; Peter J Gergen; Eugene R Bleecker; Mario Castro; Serpil C Erzurum; John V Fahy; Benjamin M Gaston; Elliot Israel; Bruce D Levy; Deborah A Meyers; W Gerald Teague; Leonard B Bacharier; Ngoc P Ly; Wanda Phipatanakul; Kristie R Ross; Joe Zein; Nizar N Jarjour Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Robert L Askew; Carmen E Capo-Lugo; Rajbeer Sangha; Andrew Naidech; Shyam Prabhakaran Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Sine Rossen; Karen Trier; Berit Christensen; Martina A Eriksen; Ann-Dorthe Zwisler; Jette Vibe-Petersen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Freddy M H Lam; Yi Su; Zhi-Hui Lu; Ruby Yu; Jason C S Leung; Timothy C Y Kwok Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Wouter Van Bogaert; Koen Putman; Iris Coppieters; Lisa Goudman; Jo Nijs; Maarten Moens; Ronald Buyl; Kelly Ickmans; Eva Huysmans Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 4.147