Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey

Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Tahira Devji; Anila Qasim; Mark R Phillips; Yuting Wang; Bradley C Johnston; Niveditha Devasenapathy; Dena Zeraatkar; Meha Bhatt; Xuejing Jin; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Olivia Urquhart; Farid Foroutan; Stefan Schandelmaier; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; Qiukui Hao; Vanessa Wong; Zhikang Ye; Liam Yao; Robin W M Vernooij; Hsiaomin Huang; Linan Zeng; Yamna Rizwan; Reed Siemieniuk; Lyubov Lytvyn; Donald L Patrick; Shanil Ebrahim; Toshi A Furukawa; Gihad Nesrallah; Holger J Schünemann; Mohit Bhandari; Lehana Thabane; Gordon H Guyatt

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024

Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey

Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Tahira Devji, Anila Qasim, Mark R Phillips, Yuting Wang, Bradley C Johnston, Niveditha Devasenapathy, Dena Zeraatkar, Meha Bhatt, Xuejing Jin, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Olivia Urquhart, Farid Foroutan, Stefan Schandelmaier, Hector Pardo-Hernandez, Qiukui Hao, Vanessa Wong, Zhikang Ye, Liam Yao, Robin W M VernooijHsiaomin Huang, Linan Zeng, Yamna Rizwan, Reed Siemieniuk, Lyubov Lytvyn, Donald L Patrick, Shanil Ebrahim, Toshi A Furukawa, Gihad Nesrallah, Holger J Schünemann, Mohit Bhandari, Lehana Thabane, Gordon H Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs.

RESULTS: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%).

CONCLUSION: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	61-71
Number of pages	11
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	133
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024
Publication status	Published - May 2021

Keywords

Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
Drug Therapy/statistics & numerical data
Europe
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
North America
Observer Variation
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data
Rehabilitation/statistics & numerical data
Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data
Young Adult
Patient-reported outcome measure
Minimal important difference

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024

Cite this

Carrasco-Labra, A., Devji, T., Qasim, A., Phillips, M. R., Wang, Y., Johnston, B. C., Devasenapathy, N., Zeraatkar, D., Bhatt, M., Jin, X., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Urquhart, O., Foroutan, F., Schandelmaier, S., Pardo-Hernandez, H., Hao, Q., Wong, V., Ye, Z., Yao, L., ... Guyatt, G. H. (2021). Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 133, 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024

@article{a1c491743a00431c8dec76e1461bd203,

title = "Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey",

abstract = "OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs.RESULTS: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%).CONCLUSION: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.",

keywords = "Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Drug Therapy/statistics & numerical data, Europe, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, North America, Observer Variation, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data, Rehabilitation/statistics & numerical data, Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data, Young Adult, Patient-reported outcome measure, Minimal important difference",

author = "Alonso Carrasco-Labra and Tahira Devji and Anila Qasim and Phillips, {Mark R} and Yuting Wang and Johnston, {Bradley C} and Niveditha Devasenapathy and Dena Zeraatkar and Meha Bhatt and Xuejing Jin and Romina Brignardello-Petersen and Olivia Urquhart and Farid Foroutan and Stefan Schandelmaier and Hector Pardo-Hernandez and Qiukui Hao and Vanessa Wong and Zhikang Ye and Liam Yao and Vernooij, {Robin W M} and Hsiaomin Huang and Linan Zeng and Yamna Rizwan and Reed Siemieniuk and Lyubov Lytvyn and Patrick, {Donald L} and Shanil Ebrahim and Furukawa, {Toshi A} and Gihad Nesrallah and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J} and Mohit Bhandari and Lehana Thabane and Guyatt, {Gordon H}",

note = "Funding Information: Funding/support: This research was funded in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Knowledge Synthesis grant number DC0190SR . Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2021",

month = may,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024",

language = "English",

volume = "133",

pages = "61--71",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Carrasco-Labra, A, Devji, T, Qasim, A, Phillips, MR, Wang, Y, Johnston, BC, Devasenapathy, N, Zeraatkar, D, Bhatt, M, Jin, X, Brignardello-Petersen, R, Urquhart, O, Foroutan, F, Schandelmaier, S, Pardo-Hernandez, H, Hao, Q, Wong, V, Ye, Z, Yao, L, Vernooij, RWM, Huang, H, Zeng, L, Rizwan, Y, Siemieniuk, R, Lytvyn, L, Patrick, DL, Ebrahim, S, Furukawa, TA, Nesrallah, G, Schünemann, HJ, Bhandari, M, Thabane, L & Guyatt, GH 2021, 'Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 133, pp. 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes

T2 - A systematic survey

AU - Carrasco-Labra, Alonso

AU - Devji, Tahira

AU - Qasim, Anila

AU - Phillips, Mark R

AU - Wang, Yuting

AU - Johnston, Bradley C

AU - Devasenapathy, Niveditha

AU - Zeraatkar, Dena

AU - Bhatt, Meha

AU - Jin, Xuejing

AU - Brignardello-Petersen, Romina

AU - Urquhart, Olivia

AU - Foroutan, Farid

AU - Schandelmaier, Stefan

AU - Pardo-Hernandez, Hector

AU - Hao, Qiukui

AU - Wong, Vanessa

AU - Ye, Zhikang

AU - Yao, Liam

AU - Vernooij, Robin W M

AU - Huang, Hsiaomin

AU - Zeng, Linan

AU - Rizwan, Yamna

AU - Siemieniuk, Reed

AU - Lytvyn, Lyubov

AU - Patrick, Donald L

AU - Ebrahim, Shanil

AU - Furukawa, Toshi A

AU - Nesrallah, Gihad

AU - Schünemann, Holger J

AU - Bhandari, Mohit

AU - Thabane, Lehana

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H

N1 - Funding Information: Funding/support: This research was funded in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Knowledge Synthesis grant number DC0190SR . Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2021/5

Y1 - 2021/5

N2 - OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs.RESULTS: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%).CONCLUSION: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.

AB - OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs.RESULTS: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%).CONCLUSION: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.

KW - Adolescent

KW - Adult

KW - Aged

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Child

KW - Drug Therapy/statistics & numerical data

KW - Europe

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - North America

KW - Observer Variation

KW - Patient Reported Outcome Measures

KW - Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data

KW - Rehabilitation/statistics & numerical data

KW - Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data

KW - Young Adult

KW - Patient-reported outcome measure

KW - Minimal important difference

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100062202&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024

M3 - Review article

C2 - 33321175

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 133

SP - 61

EP - 71

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this