Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol

Bradley C Johnston, Shanil Ebrahim, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Toshi A Furukawa, Donald L Patrick, Mark W Crawford, Brenda R Hemmelgarn, Holger J Schunemann, Gordon H Guyatt, Gihad Nesrallah, Bradley C Johnston, Shanil Ebrahim, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Toshi A Furukawa, Donald L Patrick, Mark W Crawford, Brenda R Hemmelgarn, Holger J Schunemann, Gordon H Guyatt, Gihad Nesrallah

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often the outcomes of greatest importance to patients. The minimally important difference (MID) provides a measure of the smallest change in the PRO that patients perceive as important. An anchor-based approach is the most appropriate method for MID determination. No study or database currently exists that provides all anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments; nor are there any accepted standards for appraising the credibility of MID estimates. Our objectives are to complete a systematic survey of the literature to collect and characterise published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments used in evaluating the effects of interventions on chronic medical and psychiatric conditions and to assess their credibility.

Methods and analysis: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (1989 to present) to identify studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs of target PRO instruments or reporting empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs. Teams of two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, review full texts of citations, and extract relevant data. On the basis of findings from studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs, we will summarise the available methods and develop an instrument addressing the credibility of empirically ascertained MIDs. We will evaluate the credibility of all studies reporting on the empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs using the credibility instrument, and assess the instrument's inter-rater reliability. We will separately present reports for adult and paediatric populations.

Ethics and dissemination: No research ethics approval was required as we will be using aggregate data from published studies. Our work will summarise anchor-based methods available to establish MIDs, provide an instrument to assess the credibility of available MIDs, determine the reliability of that instrument, and provide a comprehensive compendium of published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments which will help improve the interpretability of outcome effects in systematic reviews and practice guidelines.

Keywords: MID; Minimally Important Difference; Patient Reported Outcome; Protocol; Systematic Survey.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of citations found in PubMed with search terms of patient reported outcome, by 5-year stratum.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of citations found in PubMed with the search terms of patient reported outcome limited to clinical trials, by 5-year stratum.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Number of citations found in PubMed with search terms of patient reported outcome and practice guidelines, by 5-year strata.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Number of citations found in PubMed with search terms of minimal (clinically) important difference, by 5-year stratum.

References

    1. 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. 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002
    1. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M et al. . An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1961;4:561–71. 10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407–15. 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
    1. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ et al. . Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:116 10.1186/1477-7525-8-116
    1. Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary–goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res 2005;40:593–7. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.0k375.x
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–6. 10.1136/
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al. . GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence–imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1283–93. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012
    1. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW et al. , Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371–83. 10.4065/77.4.371
    1. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD et al. . Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316:690–3. 10.1136/bmj.316.7132.690
    1. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11:171–84. 10.1586/erp.11.9
    1. Johnston BC, Patrick DL, Thorlund K et al. . Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses—part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:211 10.1186/1477-7525-11-211
    1. Johnston BC, Bandayrel K, Friedrich JO et al. . Presentation of continuous outcomes in meta-analysis: a survey of clinicians’ understanding and preferences. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;Suppl 1(212).
    1. MAPI Research Trust. Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of LIfe Database (PROQOLID). Secondary Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of LIfe Database (PROQOLID) 2013.
    1. Morse J. Designing funded qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Linclon YS, eds. Handbook for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994:220–35.
    1. Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP et al. . How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA 2014;312:171–9. 10.1001/jama.2014.5559
    1. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD et al. . Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010;340:c117 10.1136/bmj.c117
    1. Fallah A, Akl EA, Ebrahim S et al. . Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for single-level cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e43407 10.1371/journal.pone.0043407
    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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.024
    1. Turner D, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE et al. . Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:374–9. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.07.009
    1. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A et al. . Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:81–7. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1
    1. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, da Costa BR et al. . New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:817–26. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.02.008
    1. Yalcin I, Patrick DL, Summers K et al. . Minimal clinically important differences in Incontinence Quality-of-Life scores in stress urinary incontinence. Urology 2006;67:1304–8. 10.1016/j.urology.2005.12.006
    1. Levine M, Ioannidis J, Haines T, Harm (observational studies). In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO et al., eds. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. McGraw-Hill, 2008:363–82.
    1. Randolph A, Cook DJ, Guyatt G. Prognosis. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, et al.., eds. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: a manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice: McGraw-Hill, 2008:509–22.
    1. Furukawa TA, Jaeschke R, Cook D et al. . Measuring of patients’ experience. In: Guyatt G, Drummond R, Meade MO et al., eds. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd edn New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 2008:249–72.
    1. Akl E, Sun X, Busse JW et al. . Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:262–7. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.015
    1. Heppner PP, Kivlighan DM, Wampold BE. Research design in counseling. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1992.
    1. Kaplan RM, Sacuzzo DP. Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. 4th edn Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1997.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing interrater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420–8. 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
    1. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 1998;17:101–10. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::AID-SIM727>;2-E

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться