How should minimally important change scores for the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure be interpreted? A validation using varied methods

L Howells, S Ratib, J R Chalmers, L Bradshaw, K S Thomas, CLOTHES trial team, L Howells, S Ratib, J R Chalmers, L Bradshaw, K S Thomas, CLOTHES trial team

Abstract

Background: The Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), scored 0-28, is the core outcome instrument recommended for measuring patient-reported atopic eczema symptoms in clinical trials. To date, two published studies have broadly concurred that the minimally important change (MIC) of the POEM is three points. Further assessment of the MIC of POEM in different populations, and using a variety of methods, will improve interpretability of the POEM in research and clinical practice.

Objectives: To calculate the smallest detectable change in the POEM and estimate the MIC of the POEM using a variety of methods in a trial dataset of children with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema.

Methods: This study used distribution-based and anchor-based methods to calculate the MIC of the POEM in children with moderate-to-severe eczema.

Results: Data were collected from 300 children. The smallest detectable change was 2·13. The MIC estimates were 1·07 (using 0·2 SD of baseline POEM scores) and 2·68 (using 0·5 SD of baseline POEM scores) based on distribution-based methods; were 3·09-6·13 based on patient-/parent-reported anchor-based methods; and were 3·23-5·38 based on investigator-reported anchor-based methods.

Conclusions: We recommend the following thresholds be used to interpret changes in POEM scores: ≤ 2, unlikely to be a change beyond measurement error; 2·1-2·9, a small change detected that is likely to be beyond measurement error but may not be clinically important; 3-3·9, probably a clinically important change; ≥ 4, very likely to be a clinically important change.

© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of baseline Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary of minimally important change (MIC) estimates by method used. IGA, Investigator's Global Assessment; P/PPGA, Patient's/Parent's Global Assessment.

References

    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al COSMIN Checklist Manual. Amsterdam: VU University Medical Centre, 2009.
    1. Charman CR, Venn AJ, Williams HC. The patient‐oriented eczema measure: development and initial validation of a new tool for measuring atopic eczema severity from the patients’ perspective. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140:1513–19.
    1. Chalmers JR, Simpson E, Apfelbacher CJ et al Report from the fourth international consensus meeting to harmonize core outcome measures for atopic eczema/dermatitis clinical trials (HOME initiative). Br J Dermatol 2016; 175:69–79.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . Atopic Eczema in Under 12s: Diagnosis and Management. London: NICE, 2007.
    1. Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ et al Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther 2012; 20:160–6.
    1. de Vet HCW, Ostelo RWJG, Terwee CB et al Minimally important change determined by a visual method integratingan anchor‐based and a distribution‐based approach. Qual Life Res 2006; 16:131–42.
    1. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL et al Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient‐reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62:1062–7.
    1. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J et al Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63:524–34.
    1. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
    1. Schram ME, Spuls PI, Leeflang MM et al EASI, (objective) SCORAD and POEM for atopic eczema: responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference. Allergy 2012; 67:99–106.
    1. Gaunt DM, Metcalfe C, Ridd M. The Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure in young children: responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference. Allergy 2016; 71:1620–5.
    1. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002; 14:109–14.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D et al Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient‐reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61:102–9.
    1. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health‐related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56:395–407.
    1. Gerbens LA, Prinsen CA, Chalmers JR et al Evaluation of the measurement properties of symptom measurement instruments for atopic eczema: a systematic review. Allergy 2017; 72:146–63.
    1. Thomas KS, Bradshaw LE, Sach TH et al Silk garments plus standard care compared with standard care for treating eczema in children: a randomised, controlled, observer‐blind, pragmatic trial (CLOTHES Trial). PLOS Med 2017; 14:e1002280.
    1. Emerson RM, Charman CR, Williams HC. The Nottingham Eczema Severity Score: preliminary refinement of the Rajka and Langeland grading. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142:288–97.
    1. Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham. POEM — Patient Oriented Eczema Measure. Available at: (last accesssed 29 March 2018).
    1. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD et al Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007; 7:541–6.
    1. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health‐related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41:582–92.
    1. Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee CB et al Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68:1388–96.
    1. Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee CB. The anchor‐based minimal important change (MIC), based on ROC analysis or predictive modeling, may need to be adjusted for the proportion of improved patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 83:90–100.
    1. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW et al Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4:1–5.
    1. Turner D, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE et al The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63:28–36.
    1. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. The truly remarkable universality of half a standard deviation: confirmation through another look. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2004; 4:581–5.
    1. Cook JA, Hislop J, Altman DG et al Specifying the target difference in the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial: guidance for researchers. Trials 2015; 16:12.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner