The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D index: a critical review

References

• Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996;312(7023):71-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Montori V, Devereaux PJ, et al. Patients at the center: in our practice, and in our use of language. ACP J Club 2004;140(1):A11-12
   Google Scholar
• Dolan P. The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Handbook of health economics. 1st edition. Elsevier, Holland; 2000. p. 1723-60
   Google Scholar
• Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R. Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making 2005;25(3):250-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira ML, Herbert RD, Ferreira PH, 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(3):253-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10(4):407-15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Herbert RD, Latimer J. People with low back pain typically need to feel ’much better’ to consider intervention worthwhile: an observational study. Aust J Physiother 2009;55(2):123-7
   Google Scholar
• Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, et al. How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis? Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66(6):771-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staerkle RF VP. Simple questionnaire for assessing core outcomes in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2011;98(1):148-55
   Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;21(5):70-8
   Google Scholar
• Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005;60(7):1571-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le QA, Doctor JN, Zoellner LA, Feeny NC. Minimal clinically important differences for the EQ-5D and QWB-SA in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): results from a Doubly Randomized Preference Trial (DRPT). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;12(11):59-68
   Google Scholar
• 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(2):102-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005;14(6):1523-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35(11):1095-108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark RG, Reitmeir P, Leidl R, König HH. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in inflammatory bowel disease in Germany. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010;16(1):42-51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen K, Hansen TB, Søballe K. Hiparthroplasty patients benefit from accelerated perioperative care and rehabilitation: a quasi-experimental study of 98 patients. Acta Orthop 2008;79(5):624-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solberg T, Johnsen LG, Nygaard ØP, Grotle M. Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery? : estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures. Acta Orthop 2013;84(2):196-201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soer R, Reneman MF, Speijer BL, et al. Clinimetric properties of the EuroQol-5D in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine J 2012;12(11):1035-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, et al. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18(2):154-60
   Google Scholar
• Impellizzeri FM, Mannion AF, Naal FD, et al. The early outcome of surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement: success depends on how you measure it. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012;20(7):638-45
   Google Scholar
• McDonough CM, Tosteson TD, Tosteson AN, et al. A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation. Med Decis Making 2011;31(2):270-80
   Google Scholar
• Kvam AK, Fayers PM, Wisloff F. Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2011;87(4):330-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shikiar R, Willian MK, Okun MM, et al. The validity and responsiveness of three quality of life measures in the assessment of psoriasis patients: results of a phase II study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;27(4):71-82
   Google Scholar
• Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, et al. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14(5):598-604
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16(5):471-8
   Google Scholar
• Parker SL, Adogwa O, Mendenhall SK, et al. Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudo arthrosis. Spine J 2012;12(12):1122-8
   Google Scholar
• Luo N, Johnson J, Coons SJ. Using instrument-defined health state transitions to estimate minimally important differences for four preference-based health-related quality of life instruments. Med Care 2010;48(4):365-71
   Google Scholar
• 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(5):469-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47(1):81-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar