Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research

Practical issues encountered while determining Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes

Authors: Pascal Woaye-Hune, Jean-Benoit Hardouin, Paul-Antoine Lehur, Guillaume Meurette, Antoine Vanier

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Using a real dataset, we highlighted several major methodological issues raised by the estimation of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of a Patient-Reported Outcomes instrument. We especially considered the management of missing data and the use of more than two times of measurement. While inappropriate missing data management and inappropriate use of multiple time points can lead to loss of precision and/or bias in MCID estimation, these issues are almost never dealt with and require cautious considerations in the context of MCID estimation.

Methods

We used the LIGALONGO study (French Randomized Controlled Trial). We estimated MCID on the SF-36 General Health score by comparing many methods (distribution or anchor-based). Different techniques for imputation of missing data were performed (simple and multiple imputations). We also consider all measurement occasions by longitudinal modeling, and the dependence of the score difference on baseline.

Results

Three hundred ninety-three patients were studied. With distribution-based methods, a great variability in MCID was observed (from 3 to 26 points for improvement). Only 0.2 SD and 1/3 SD distribution methods gave MCID values consistent with anchor-based methods (from 4 to 7 points for improvement). The choice of missing data imputation technique clearly had an impact on MCID estimates. Simple imputation by mean score seemed to lead to out-of-range estimate, but as missing not at random mechanism can be hypothesized, even multiple imputations techniques can have led to an slight underestimation of MCID. Using 3 measurement occasions for improvement led to an increase in precision but lowered estimates.

Conclusion

This practical example illustrates the substantial impact of some methodological issues that are usually never dealt with for MCID estimation. Simulation studies are needed to investigate those issues.

Trial registration

NCT01240772 (ClinicalTrials.gov) registered on November 15, 2010.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
McLeod LD, Coon CD, Martin SA, Fehnel SE, Hays RD. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:163–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Ferreira ML, Herbert RD, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, Ostelo RW, Nascimento DP, et al. A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:253–61.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc. 2007;7:541–6.CrossRef
5.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009.
6.
Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–9.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:524–34.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Vanier A, Woaye-Hune P, Toscano A, Sébille V, Hardouin J-B. What are all the proposed methods to estimate the minimal clinically important difference of a patient-reported outcome measure? A systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(S1):20.
9.
Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, Liang MH. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:711–7.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Tubach F, Wells GA, Ravaud P, Dougados M. Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:2025–9.PubMed
11.
Lehur PA, Didnée AS, Faucheron J-L, Meurette G, Zerbib P, Siproudhis L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of new surgical treatments for hemorrhoidal disease: a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing transanal Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation with mucopexy and circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy. Ann Surg. 2016;264:710–6.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45:384–91.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;82:128–36.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Leidy NK, Wyrwich KW. Bridging the gap: using triangulation methodology to estimate minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). COPD J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2005;2:157–65.CrossRef
15.
Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–89.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed, reprint. New York: Psychology Press; 2009.
17.
Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76:1109–23.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28:632–42.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
20.
Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:861–73.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1999;37:469–78.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Beaton DE. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine. 2000;25:3192–9.PubMedCrossRef
23.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:804–5.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Angst F, Benz T, Lehmann S, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. Multidimensional minimal clinically important differences in knee osteoarthritis after comprehensive rehabilitation: a prospective evaluation from the Bad Zurzach Osteoarthritis Study. RMD Open. 2018;4:e000685.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Azimi P, Yazdanian T, Benzel EC. Determination of minimally clinically important differences for JOABPEQ measure after discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation. J Spine Surg Hong Kong. 2018;4:102–8.CrossRef
26.
Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419–23.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Redelmeier DA, Lorig K. Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements. An illustration in rheumatology. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:1337–42.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1215–9.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Gerlinger C, Schumacher U, Faustmann T, Colligs A, Schmitz H, Seitz C. Defining a minimal clinically important difference for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain measured on a visual analog scale: analyses of two placebo-controlled, randomized trials. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:138.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Barrett B, Brown R, Mundt M. Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2008;17:75–85.CrossRef
31.
Little R, Rubin D. Statistical analysis with missing data. New-York: Wiley; 1987.
32.
Leplège A, Ecosse E, Pouchot J, Coste J, Perneger T. Le questionnaire MOS SF-36: manuel de l’utilisateur et guide d’interprétation des scores. Paris: Editions ESTEM; 2001.
33.
Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:1157–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
van Buuren S. Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16:219–42.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.PubMedCrossRef
36.
R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
37.
van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1–67.CrossRef
38.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2013.
39.
40.
Azimi P, Mohammadi HR, Benzel EC, Shahzadi S, Azhari S, Montazeri A. Artificial neural networks in neurosurgery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015;86:251–6.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Rouquette A, Blanchin M, Sébille V, Guillemin F, Côté SM, Falissard B, et al. The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:433–40.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Schwartz CE, Ayandeh A, Motl RW. Investigating the minimal important difference in ambulation in multiple sclerosis: a disconnect between performance-based and patient-reported outcomes? J Neurol Sci. 2014;347:268–74.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Practical issues encountered while determining Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes
Authors
Pascal Woaye-Hune
Jean-Benoit Hardouin
Paul-Antoine Lehur
Guillaume Meurette
Antoine Vanier
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01398-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research

How does the onset of incontinence affect satisfaction with life among older women and men? Findings from a nationally representative longitudinal study (German Ageing Survey)

Research

Translation and validation of the Short HIV Stigma scale in Brazilian Portuguese

Research

Validation of the Greek translation of the multicultural quality of life index (MQLI-gr)

Research

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Slovenian version of Harris Hip Score

Research

Chinese version of the international positive and negative affect schedule short form: factor structure and measurement invariance

Research

Quality of life impact of refractive correction (QIRC) results three years after SMILE and FS-LASIK