Literature DB >> 31953077

A Standard Method for Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Rehabilitation Measures.

James F Malec1, Jessica M Ketchum2.   

Abstract

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is receiving increasing interest and importance in medical practice and research. The MCID is the smallest improvement in scores in the domain of interest that patients perceive as beneficial. In clinical trials, comparing the proportion of individuals between treatment and control groups who obtain a MCID may be more informative than comparisons of mean change between groups because a statistically significant mean difference does not necessarily represent a difference that is perceived as meaningful by treatment recipients. The MCID may also be useful in advancing personalized medicine by characterizing those who are most likely to benefit from a treatment. In clinical practice, the MCID can be used to identify if a participant is experiencing a meaningful change in status. A variety of methods have been used to determine the MCID with no clear agreement on the most appropriate approach. Two major sets of methods are either (1) distribution-based, that is, referencing the MCID to a measure of variability or effect size in the measure of interest or (2) anchor-based, that is, referencing the MCID to an external assessment of change in the condition, ability, or activity represented by the measure of interest. In prior literature, using multiple methods to "triangulate" on the value of the MCID has been proposed. In this commentary, we describe a systematic approach to triangulate on the MCID using both distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Adaptation of a systematic approach for obtaining the MCID in rehabilitation would facilitate communication and comparison of results among rehabilitation researchers and providers.
Copyright © 2020 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimal clinically important difference; Outcome and process assessment, health care; Patient outcome assessment; Quality of health care; Rehabilitation

Year:  2020        PMID: 31953077     DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  7 in total

1.  Revisiting the Concept of Minimal Detectable Change for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Authors:  Bryant A Seamon; Steven A Kautz; Mark G Bowden; Craig A Velozo
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2022-08-04

2.  Minimum Clinically Important Difference of Gross Motor Function and Gait Endurance in Children with Motor Impairment: A Comparison of Distribution-Based Approaches.

Authors:  Fabio Alexander Storm; Maurizio Petrarca; Elena Beretta; Sandra Strazzer; Luigi Piccinini; Cristina Maghini; Daniele Panzeri; Claudio Corbetta; Roberta Morganti; Gianluigi Reni; Enrico Castelli; Flaminia Frascarelli; Alessandra Colazza; Giampietro Cordone; Emilia Biffi
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Shoulder Instability.

Authors:  Wei Sheng Foong; Gerald Joseph Zeng; Graham S Goh; Ying Hao; Denny Tjiauw Tjoen Lie; Paul Chee Cheng Chang
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2022-01-04

4.  Minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state of PROMIS upper extremity after total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Dan Gordon; Yaniv Pines; Erel Ben-Ari; Rokito As; Young W Kwon; Joseph D Zuckerman; Mandeep S Virk
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-06-30

5.  An updated approach to determine minimal clinically important differences in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Authors:  Mohleen Kang; Srihari Veeraraghavan; Greg S Martin; Jordan A Kempker
Journal:  ERJ Open Res       Date:  2021-10-18

6.  Clinically Relevant Changes for Cognitive Outcomes in Preclinical and Prodromal Cognitive Stages: Implications for Clinical Alzheimer Trials.

Authors:  Emma Borland; Chris Edgar; Erik Stomrud; Nicholas Cullen; Oskar Hansson; Sebastian Palmqvist
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 11.800

7.  Bilingual problem-solving training for caregivers of adults with dementia: A randomized, factorial-design protocol for the CaDeS trial.

Authors:  ShannonB Juengst; Charlene Supnet; Chung Lin Novelle Kew; Valeria Silva; Marlene Vega; Gang Han; Brendan Kelley; Matthew Lee Smith; Gladys Maestre
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 2.261

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.