Literature DB >> 34752939

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

Michael M Ward1, Maria I Alba2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Minimal clinically important improvements (MCII) are known to vary with the baseline level in the sample. We examined if MCIIs are also larger in samples with higher responsiveness. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: In a prospective longitudinal study of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis, we assessed arthritis activity before and after new treatments. We estimated anchor-based MCIIs for three outcomes (pain severity, physical functioning by the Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Simplified Disease Activity Index, a composite measure) using receiver operating characteristic curves. We compared MCIIs among patients treated with three interventions of different impact (dose escalation, new disease-modifying medication, or prednisone). Separately, we used simulations to estimate MCIIs in five groups of responsiveness.
RESULTS: Among 250 patients, standardized response means (SRMs) increased across the dose escalation, disease-modifying treatment, and prednisone treatment groups (-0.74, -1.00, and -1.53, respectively). MCIIs were also highest in the prednisone group. For example, corresponding MCIIs were -5.5, -8.9, and -13.8 for the composite measure. In the simulations, MCIIs (range -4.6 to -11.9) varied directly with SRMs (range -0.40 to -1.33). Results were similar for pain and the Health Assessment Questionnaire.
CONCLUSION: The MCII is not an intrinsic measurement property but varies directly with sample responsiveness.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health Assessment Questionnaire; Minimal clinically important difference; Pain; Responsiveness; Rheumatoid arthritis; Simplified Disease Activity Index

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34752939      PMCID: PMC8881395          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.002

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


  24 in total

Review 1.  Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research.

Authors:  Dorcas E Beaton; Marteen Boers; George A Wells
Journal:  Curr Opin Rheumatol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.006

2.  Baseline health status and setting impacted minimal clinically important differences in COPD: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Harma Alma; Corina de Jong; Danijel Jelusic; Michael Wittmann; Michael Schuler; Boudewijn Kollen; Robbert Sanderman; Janwillem Kocks; Konrad Schultz; Thys van der Molen
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-07-27       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Mette Frahm Olsen; Eik Bjerre; Maria Damkjær Hansen; Britta Tendal; Jørgen Hilden; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  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.

Authors:  Berend Terluin; Iris Eekhout; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2017-01-14       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire.

Authors:  P W Stratford; J Binkley; P Solomon; E Finch; C Gill; J Moreland
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1996-04

Review 6.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; David Osoba; Albert W Wu; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

7.  Dependence of the minimal clinically important improvement on the baseline value is a consequence of floor and ceiling effects and not different expectations by patients.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Perception of improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis varies with disease activity levels at baseline.

Authors:  D Aletaha; J Funovits; M M Ward; J S Smolen; T K Kvien
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2009-03-15

Review 9.  Minimal clinically important differences in pharmacological trials.

Authors:  Paul W Jones; Kai M Beeh; Kenneth R Chapman; Marc Decramer; Donald A Mahler; Jadwiga A Wedzicha
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 21.405

Review 10.  Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain.

Authors:  Mette Frahm Olsen; Eik Bjerre; Maria Damkjær Hansen; Jørgen Hilden; Nino Emanuel Landler; Britta Tendal; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.