Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Quality of Life Research 1/2007

Open Access 01-02-2007

Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach

Authors: Henrica C. W. de Vet, Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo, Caroline B. Terwee, Nicole van der Roer, Dirk L. Knol, Heleen Beckerman, Maarten Boers, Lex M. Bouter

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 1/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Background:

Minimally important changes (MIC) in scores help interpret results from health status instruments. Various distribution-based and anchor-based approaches have been proposed to assess MIC.

Objectives:

To describe and apply a visual method, called the anchor-based MIC distribution method, which integrates both approaches.

Method:

Using an anchor, patients are categorized as persons with an important improvement, an important deterioration, or without important change. For these three groups the distribution of the change scores on the health status instrument are depicted in a graph. We present two cut-off points for an MIC: the ROC cut-off point and the 95% limit cut-off point.

Results:

We illustrate our anchor-based MIC distribution method determining the MIC for the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with low back pain, using two conceivable definitions of minimal important change on the anchor. The graph shows the distribution of the scores of the health status instrument for the relevant categories on the anchor, and also the consequences of choosing the ROC cut-off point or the 95% limit cut-off point.

Discussion:

The anchor-based MIC distribution method provides a general framework, applicable to all kind of anchors. This method forces researchers to choose and justify their choice of an appropriate anchor and to define minimal importance on that anchor. The MIC is not an invariable characteristic of a measurement instrument, but may depend, among other things, on the perspective from which minimal importance is considered and the baseline values on the measurement instrument under study. A balance needs to be struck between the practicality of a single MIC value and the validity of a range of MIC values.
Footnotes
1
1.645 corresponds to 5% upper limit (one-tailed); 1.96 corresponds to 2.5% upper limit (one-tailed).
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wright JG (1996). The minimal important difference: Who’s to say what is important? J Clin Epidemiol 49:1221–1222CrossRefPubMed Wright JG (1996). The minimal important difference: Who’s to say what is important? J Clin Epidemiol 49:1221–1222CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE (1994) Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 47:81–87CrossRefPubMed Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE (1994) Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 47:81–87CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415CrossRefPubMed Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Van Walraven C, Mahon JL, Moher D, Bohm C, Laupacis A (1999) Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: Implications for sample-size calculation. J Clin Epidemiol 52:717–723CrossRefPubMed Van Walraven C, Mahon JL, Moher D, Bohm C, Laupacis A (1999) Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: Implications for sample-size calculation. J Clin Epidemiol 52:717–723CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG, Wells G, Boers M, Strand V, Shea B (2001) Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference. J Rheumatol 28:400–405PubMed Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG, Wells G, Boers M, Strand V, Shea B (2001) Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference. J Rheumatol 28:400–405PubMed
6.
go back to reference De Vet HC, Beckerman H, Terwee CB, Terluin B, Bouter LM (2006) Definition of clinical differences. J Rheumatol 33:434PubMed De Vet HC, Beckerman H, Terwee CB, Terluin B, Bouter LM (2006) Definition of clinical differences. J Rheumatol 33:434PubMed
7.
go back to reference Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR (2003) Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56:395–407CrossRefPubMed Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR (2003) Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56:395–407CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR (2004) An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 57:1153–1160CrossRefPubMed Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR (2004) An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 57:1153–1160CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Jacobson NS, Truax P (1991) Clinical significance:a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59:12–19CrossRefPubMed Jacobson NS, Truax P (1991) Clinical significance:a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59:12–19CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Jacobson NS, Roberts LJ, Berns SB, McGlinchey JB (1999) Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: Description, application, and alternatives. J Consult Clin Psychol 67:300–307CrossRefPubMed Jacobson NS, Roberts LJ, Berns SB, McGlinchey JB (1999) Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: Description, application, and alternatives. J Consult Clin Psychol 67:300–307CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Centor RM (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change:an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906CrossRefPubMed Deyo RA, Centor RM (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change:an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S–158SCrossRefPubMed Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S–158SCrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL (1996) Health status measures: Strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 76:1109–1123PubMed Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL (1996) Health status measures: Strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 76:1109–1123PubMed
14.
go back to reference Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K (2002) Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 11:207–221CrossRefPubMed Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K (2002) Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 11:207–221CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM (2001) Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94:149–158CrossRefPubMed Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM (2001) Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94:149–158CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HC (2006) Minimal clinically important change for different outcome measures in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 31:578–582CrossRefPubMed Van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HC (2006) Minimal clinically important change for different outcome measures in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 31:578–582CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, Hendriks EJ, Koopmanschap MA, Knol DL, Bouter LM, Oostendorp RA (2005) Implementation of clinical guidelines on physical therapy for patients with low back pain: Randomized trial comparing patient outcomes after a standard and active implementation strategy. Phys Ther 85:544–555PubMed Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, Hendriks EJ, Koopmanschap MA, Knol DL, Bouter LM, Oostendorp RA (2005) Implementation of clinical guidelines on physical therapy for patients with low back pain: Randomized trial comparing patient outcomes after a standard and active implementation strategy. Phys Ther 85:544–555PubMed
18.
go back to reference Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. (1986) The measurement of clinical pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain 27:117–126CrossRefPubMed Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. (1986) The measurement of clinical pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain 27:117–126CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE (2002) A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 55:900–908CrossRefPubMed Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE (2002) A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 55:900–908CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. (1997) Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50:869–879CrossRefPubMed Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. (1997) Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50:869–879CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Cella D, Eton DT, Fairclough DL, Bonomi P, Heyes AE, Silberman C, Wolf MK, Johnson DH (2002) What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. J Clin Epidemiol 55:285–295CrossRefPubMed Cella D, Eton DT, Fairclough DL, Bonomi P, Heyes AE, Silberman C, Wolf MK, Johnson DH (2002) What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. J Clin Epidemiol 55:285–295CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Williams GR (2002) Integrating anchor-based and distribution-based methods to determine clinically meaningful change in obesity-specific quality of life. Qual Life Res 11:670CrossRef Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Williams GR (2002) Integrating anchor-based and distribution-based methods to determine clinically meaningful change in obesity-specific quality of life. Qual Life Res 11:670CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, Osterhaus JT, Ware JE Jr (2000) Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 43:1478–1487CrossRefPubMed Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, Osterhaus JT, Ware JE Jr (2000) Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 43:1478–1487CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Jaeschke RJ (1997) Reassessing quality-of-life instruments in the evaluation of new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 12:621–626CrossRefPubMed Guyatt GH, Jaeschke RJ (1997) Reassessing quality-of-life instruments in the evaluation of new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 12:621–626CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Sloan JA, Cella D, Hays RD. (2005) Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: Another step toward consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 58:1217–1219CrossRefPubMed Sloan JA, Cella D, Hays RD. (2005) Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: Another step toward consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 58:1217–1219CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37:469–478CrossRefPubMed Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37:469–478CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain:a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76CrossRefPubMed Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain:a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Ostelo RW, de Vet HC, Knol DL, van den Brandt PA (2004) 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 57:268–276CrossRefPubMed Ostelo RW, de Vet HC, Knol DL, van den Brandt PA (2004) 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 57:268–276CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W (2004) Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain 8:283–291CrossRefPubMed Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W (2004) Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain 8:283–291CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL (1999) The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS):scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther 79:371–383PubMed Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL (1999) The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS):scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther 79:371–383PubMed
31.
go back to reference Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: Part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186–1196PubMed Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: Part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186–1196PubMed
32.
go back to reference Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52:861–873CrossRefPubMed Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52:861–873CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (2002) Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 11:1–7CrossRefPubMed Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (2002) Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 11:1–7CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20PubMed Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20PubMed
35.
go back to reference Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire:part 2. Phys Ther 78:1197–1207PubMed Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire:part 2. Phys Ther 78:1197–1207PubMed
36.
go back to reference Santanello NC, Zhang J, Seidenberg B, Reiss TF, Barber BL (1999) What are minimal important changes for asthma measures in a clinical trial? Eur Respir J 14:23–27CrossRefPubMed Santanello NC, Zhang J, Seidenberg B, Reiss TF, Barber BL (1999) What are minimal important changes for asthma measures in a clinical trial? Eur Respir J 14:23–27CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H (2005) Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related qualityof life measures. COPD: J Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Dis 2:63–67CrossRef Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H (2005) Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related qualityof life measures. COPD: J Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Dis 2:63–67CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Ostelo RW, de Vet HC (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:593–607CrossRefPubMed Ostelo RW, de Vet HC (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:593–607CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Wolfe F, Michaud K, Strand V. (2005) Expanding the definition of clinical differences:from minimally clinically important differences to really important differences. Analyses in 8931 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 32:583–589PubMed Wolfe F, Michaud K, Strand V. (2005) Expanding the definition of clinical differences:from minimally clinically important differences to really important differences. Analyses in 8931 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 32:583–589PubMed
40.
go back to reference Hays RD, Brodsky M, Johnston MF, Spritzer KL, Hui K (2005) Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Eval Health Professions 28:160–171CrossRef Hays RD, Brodsky M, Johnston MF, Spritzer KL, Hui K (2005) Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Eval Health Professions 28:160–171CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR (2002) Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77:371–383CrossRefPubMed Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR (2002) Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77:371–383CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS (1998) Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. Br Med J 316:690–693 Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS (1998) Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. Br Med J 316:690–693
Metadata
Title
Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach
Authors
Henrica C. W. de Vet
Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo
Caroline B. Terwee
Nicole van der Roer
Dirk L. Knol
Heleen Beckerman
Maarten Boers
Lex M. Bouter
Publication date
01-02-2007
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 1/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9109-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2007

Quality of Life Research 1/2007 Go to the issue