TY - JOUR
T1 - Serious reporting deficiencies exist in minimal important difference studies
T2 - current state and suggestions for improvement
AU - Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
AU - Devji, Tahira
AU - Qasim, Anila
AU - Phillips, Mark
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 - Vernooij, Robin Wm
AU - Huang, Hsiaomin
AU - Rizwan, Yamna
AU - Siemieniuk, Reed
AU - Lytvyn, Lyubov
AU - Patrick, Donald L
AU - Ebrahim, Shanil
AU - Furukawa, Toshi A
AU - Nesrallah, Gihad
AU - Schunemann, Holger J
AU - Bhandari, Mohit
AU - Thabane, Lehana
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: This research was funded in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) , Knowledge Synthesis grant number DC0190SR .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reporting of minimal important difference (MID) estimates using anchor-based methods for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the association with reporting deficiencies on their credibility.METHODS: Systematic survey of primary studies empirically estimating MIDs. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database until October 2018. We evaluated study reporting, focusing on participants' demographics, intervention(s), characteristics of PROMs and anchors, and MID estimation method(s). We assessed the impact of reporting issues on credibility of MID estimates.RESULTS: In 585 studies reporting on 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs, authors frequently failed to adequately report key characteristics of PROMs and MIDs, including minimum and maximum values of PROM scale, measure of variability accompanying the MID estimate and number of participants included in the MID calculation. Across MID estimates (n = 5,324), the most serious reporting issues impacting credibility included infrequent reporting of the correlation between the anchor and PROM (66%), inadequate details to judge precision of MID point estimate (13%), and insufficient information about the threshold used to ascertain MIDs (16%).CONCLUSION: Serious issues of incomplete reporting in the MID literature threaten the optimal use of MID estimates to inform the magnitude of effects of interventions on PROMs.
AB - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reporting of minimal important difference (MID) estimates using anchor-based methods for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the association with reporting deficiencies on their credibility.METHODS: Systematic survey of primary studies empirically estimating MIDs. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database until October 2018. We evaluated study reporting, focusing on participants' demographics, intervention(s), characteristics of PROMs and anchors, and MID estimation method(s). We assessed the impact of reporting issues on credibility of MID estimates.RESULTS: In 585 studies reporting on 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs, authors frequently failed to adequately report key characteristics of PROMs and MIDs, including minimum and maximum values of PROM scale, measure of variability accompanying the MID estimate and number of participants included in the MID calculation. Across MID estimates (n = 5,324), the most serious reporting issues impacting credibility included infrequent reporting of the correlation between the anchor and PROM (66%), inadequate details to judge precision of MID point estimate (13%), and insufficient information about the threshold used to ascertain MIDs (16%).CONCLUSION: Serious issues of incomplete reporting in the MID literature threaten the optimal use of MID estimates to inform the magnitude of effects of interventions on PROMs.
KW - Anchor-based methods
KW - Credibility
KW - Minimal important difference
KW - Patient-reported outcome
KW - Reporting quality
KW - Systematic survey
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134605182&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.010
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.010
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35760237
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 150
SP - 25
EP - 32
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -