1,426
Views
122
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Invited Symposium

Assessing the Minimally Clinically Significant Difference: Scientific Considerations, Challenges and Solutions

, Ph.D.
Pages 57-62 | Published online: 24 Aug 2009

REFERENCES

  • Tannock I F. Treating the patient, not just the cancer. N Engl J Med 1987; 3(17):1534–1535.
  • American Society of Clinical Oncology. Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:671–679.
  • Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, Fullerton S, Aaronson N. Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life-a european guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Inform J 2002; 36:209–238.
  • Sloan J, Symonds T. Health related quality of life measurement in clinical trials: when does a statistically significant change become clinically relevant?. J Drug Inform Journal 2003; 37:23–31.
  • Patrick D L, Chiang Y P. Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: conceptual and methodological challenges. Med Care 2000; 38(9 Suppl):II14–II25. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE]
  • Leplege A, Hunt S. The problem of quality of life in medicine. JAMA 1997; 278(1):47–50. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF]
  • Cella D F. Quality of life outcomes: measurement and validation. Oncology 1996; 10((11)Suppl):233–246. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE]
  • Frost M H, Sloan J A. Quality of life measurements: a soft outcome-or is it?. Am J Manage Care 2002; 8(18):S574–S579. [CSA]
  • Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman M L, Williams G R, Lipscomb J, Matchar D. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 2:142–155.
  • Wyrwich K W. Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection?. J Biopharm Stat 2004; 14(1):97–110. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA], [CROSSREF]
  • Redelmeier D A, Guyatt G H, Goldstein R S. Assessing the minimal important different in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49:1215–1219. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA], [CROSSREF]
  • Guyatt G H, Osoba D, Wu A W, Wyrwich K W, Norman G R, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 371–383.
  • Jaeschke R, Singer J, Juyatt G H. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10:407–415. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF]
  • Juniper E, Guyatt G H, Willan A, Griffith L E. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47(1):81–87. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA], [CROSSREF]
  • Guyatt G, Juniper E F, Walter S D, Griffith L E, Goldstein R S. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. Br Med J 1998; 316:690–693.
  • Sloan J A, Cella D, Frost M, Guyatt G H, Sprangers M, Symonds T, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77:367–370. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CSA]
  • Farivar S S, Liu H, Hays R D. Another look at the half standard deviation estimate on the minimally important difference in health-related quality of life scores. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2004; 4(5):521–529. [CSA]
  • Sloan J A, Vargas-Chanes D, Kamath C C, Sargent D J, Novotny P J, Atherton P, Allmer C, Fridley B L, Frost M H, Loprinzi C L. Detecting worms, ducks and elephants: a simple approach for defining clinically relevant effects in quality-of-life measures. J Cancer Integr Med 2003; 1(1):41–47. [CSA]
  • Norman G R, Sloan J A, Wyrwich K W. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of a half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41(5):582–592. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE], [CROSSREF]
  • Thrasse P, Arbuck S G, Eisenhauer E A, Wanders J, Kaplan R S, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, van Glabbeke M, van Oostenom A T, Christian M C, Crwyther S CT. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tmors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92(3):205–216. [CROSSREF]
  • Moertel C G, Hanley J A. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 1976; 38(1):388–394. [PUBMED], [INFOTRIEVE]

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.