A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods

References

• Guyatt GH, Osaba D, Wu AW et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin. Proc.77(4), 371–383 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD2(1), 63–67 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle 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.61(2), 102–109 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N et al. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual. Life Res.14(2), 285–295 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J. Chronic Dis.40(2), 171–178 (1987).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control. Clin. Trials10, 407–415 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual. Life Res.2, 221–226 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich WK. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med. Care41(5), 582–592 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J. Clin. Oncol.16(1), 139–144 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, Fayers PM, Brown JM. Quality, interpretation and presentation of EORTC QLQ-C30 data in randomised controlled trials. Eur. J. Cancer44, 1793–1798 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Goodbye (M)CID! Hello MID, where do you come from? (Commentary). Health Serv. Res.40(2), 593–597 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringash J, Bezjak A, O’Sullivan B, Redelmeier DA. Interpreting differences in quality of life: the FACT-H&N in laryngeal cancer patients. Qual. Life Res.13(4), 725–733 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringash J, O’Sullivan B, Bezjak A, Redelmeier DA. Interpreting clinically significant changes in patient-reported outcomes. Cancer110(1), 196–202 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN et al. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference. J. Rheumatol.28(2), 400–405 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual. Life Outcomes4, 54 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual. Life Res.16(1), 131–142 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder C, Aaronson N. Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet374(9687), 369–370 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation (1st Edition). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, NY, USA (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Schunemann H. How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Qual. Life Res.16, 1097–1105 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osoba D, Bezjak A, Brundage M, Zee B, Tu D, Pater J; Quality of Life Committee of the NCIC CTG. Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality of life data from clinical trials: basic approach of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Eur. J. Cancer41, 280–287 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yost KJ, Cella D, Chawla A et al. Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. J. Clin. Epidemiol.58(12), 1241–1251 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman G. Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Qual. Life Res.12(3), 239–249 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz CE, Sprangers MA. Adaptation to Changing Health: Response Shift in Quality-of-Life Research (1st Edition). American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Cella D. Manual of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System (4th Edition). Evanston Northwestern Healthcare & Northwestern University, IL, USA (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE Jr. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute, Boston, MA, USA (1993).
   Google Scholar
• King MT. The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Qual. Life Res.5, 555–567 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knox S, King MT. Validation and calibration of the SF-36 health transition question against an external criterion of clinical change in health status. Qual. Life Res.18(5), 637–645 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osoba D, King M. Interpreting QOL in individuals and groups: meaningful differences. In: Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. Fayers P, Hays R (Eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 243–257 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum.45(4), 384–391 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, Peterman AH, Merkel DE. Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J. Pain Symptom Manage.24(6), 547–561 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maringwa JT, Quinten C, King M et al. Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials. Support. Care Cancer DOI: 10.1007/s00520–010–1016–1015 (2010) (Epub ahead of print).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ross M. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Rev.96(2), 341–357 (1989).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J. Clin. Epidemiol.50(8), 869–879 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrwich K, Tardino V. Understanding global transition assessments. Qual. Life Res.15(6), 995–1004 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metz SM, Wyrwich KW, Babu AN, Kroenke K, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. A comparison of traditional and Rasch cut points for assessing clinically important change in health-related quality of life among patients with asthma. Qual. Life Res.15(10), 1639–1649 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terluin B, Knol DL et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied ‘minimally important change’ values. J. Clin. Epidemiol.63(1), 37–45 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual. Life Res.4(4), 293–307 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J. Clin. Epidemiol.52(9), 861–873 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrwich K. Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection? J. Biopharm. Stat.14(1), 97–110 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Qual. Life Res.11(1), 1–7 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J. Clin. Epidemiol.63(1), 28–36 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med. Care27(3 Suppl.), S178–S189 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd Edition). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, USA (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Farivar SS, Liu H, Hays RD. Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.4(5), 515–523 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beaton DE. Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med. Care41(5), 593–596 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright JG. Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple. Med. Care41(5), 597–598 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MT, Stockler MR, Cella DF et al. Meta-analysis provides evidence-based effect sizes for a cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, the FACT-G. J. Clin. Epidemiol.63(3), 270–281 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, Martyn St-James M, Fayers PM, Brown JM. Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). J. Clin. Oncol.29(1), 89–96 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aaronson NK, Cull A, Kaasa S et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: an update. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Spilker B (Ed.). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, PA, USA, 179–189 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval. Health Prof.28(2), 172–191 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques [see comments]. J. Clin. Epidemiol.49(11), 1215–1219 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deyo RA, Inui TS, Leininger J, Overman S. Physical and psychosocial function in rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical use of a self-administered health status instrument. Arch. Intern. Med.142(5), 879–882 (1982).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvam AK, Fayers P, Wisloff F. What changes in health-related quality of life matter to multiple myeloma patients? A prospective study. Eur. J. Haematol.84(4), 345–353 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrwich KW, Metz SM, Kroenke K, Tierney WM, Babu AN, Wolinsky FD. Interpreting quality-of-life data: methods for community consensus in asthma. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol.96(6), 826–833 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrwich KW, Metz SM, Kroenke K, Tierney WM, Babu AN, Wolinsky FD. Triangulating patient and clinician perspectives on clinically important differences in health-related quality of life among patients with heart disease. Health Serv. Res.42(6 Pt 1), 2257–2274; discussion 2294–2323 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrwich KW, Metz SM, Kroenke K, Tierney WM, Babu AN, Wolinsky FD. Measuring patient and clinician perspectives to evaluate change in health-related quality of life among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J. Gen. Intern. Med.22(2), 161–170 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MT, Cella D, Osoba D et al. Meta-analysis provides evidence-based interpretation guidelines for the clinical significance of mean differences for the FACT-G, a cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire. Patient Reported Outcome Measures2010(1), 119–126 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Fayers PM, Machin D. Sample sizes. In: Quality Of Life: The Assessment, Analysis And Interpretation Of Patient-Reported Outcomes. Wiley, Chichester, UK, 247–270 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register74(235), 65132–65133 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J. Pain Symptom Manage.9(2), 105–121 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Keller SD. Interpreting general health measures. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Spilker B (Ed.). Lippincott-Raven, NY, USA, 445–460 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR; Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin. Proc.77(4), 371–383 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton D, Boers M, Wells G. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol.14(2), 109–114 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays R, Woolley J. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics18, 419–423 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrwich KW, Spratt DI, Gass M, Yu H, Bobula JD. Identifying meaningful differences in vasomotor symptoms among menopausal women. Menopause15(4 Pt 1), 698–705 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloan JA, Cella D, Frost M, Guyatt GH, 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.77(4), 367–370 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Beckerman H, Terwee CB, Terluin B, Bouter LM. Definition of clinical differences. J. Rheumatol.33(2), 434; author reply 435 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Becher JG, Bezemer PD, Verbeek AL. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual. Life Res.10(7), 571–578 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oken MM, Creech, RH, Tormey DC et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am. J. Clin. Oncol.5, 649–655 (1982).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar