Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review

The smallest worthwhile effect on pain intensity of exercise therapy for people with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment study

OBJECTIVE: To identify the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) of exercise therapy for people with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment. METHODS: The SWE was estimated as the lowest reduction in pain that participants would consider exercising worthwhile, compared to not exercising i.e., effects due to natural history and other components (e.g., regression to the mean). We recruited English-speaking adults in Australia with non-specific CLBP to our online survey via email obtained from a registry of previous participants and advertisements on social media. We used discrete choice experiment to estimate the SWE of exercise compared to no exercise for pain intensity. We analysed the discrete choice experiment using a mixed logit model, and mitigated hypothetical bias through certainty calibration, with sensitivity analyses performed with different certainty calibration thresholds. RESULTS: Two-hundred and thirteen participants completed the survey. The mean age (±SD) was 50.7±16.5, median (IQR) pain duration 10 years (5-20), and mean pain intensity (±SD) was 5.8±2.3 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. For people with CLBP the SWE of exercise was a between-group reduction in pain of 20%, compared to no exercise. In the sensitivity analyses, the SWE varied with different levels of certainty calibration; from 0% without certainty calibration to 60% with more extreme certainty calibration. CONCLUSION: This patient-informed threshold of clinical importance could guide the interpretation of findings from randomised trials and meta-analyses of exercise therapy compared to no exercise.

Minimal clinically important differences in six-minute walking distance in late-onset Pompe disease

BACKGROUND

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in outcome that physicians or patients would consider meaningful and is relevant when evaluating disease progression or the efficacy of interventions. Studies of patients with late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) have used the 6-min walk distance (6MWD) as an endpoint to assess motor function. However, an MCID for 6MWD (% predicted and meters) has yet to be established in LOPD. The objective of the study was to derive 6MWD MCID (% predicted and meters) with different analysis methods and for subgroups of different disease severity for LOPD.

METHODS

Data from the PROPEL trial were used to calculate 6MWD MCID in the overall PROPEL population and subgroups of baseline severity as assessed by walking distance and body mass index (BMI), using anchor- and distribution-based approaches.

RESULTS

The 6MWD MCIDs varied widely, depending on the method and subgroup, ranging from 2.27%-8.11% predicted for the overall LOPD population (23.7 m-57.2 m). For patients with baseline 6MWD < 150 m, MCIDs ranged from -0.74%-3.37% (-2.1 m-11.3 m). MCIDs increased with distance walked at baseline until a plateau was reached. For BMI subgroups, the MCIDs were generally lowest in obese patients.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows that MCID depends on the chosen method and disease severity. The findings suggest that applying a single MCID to all patients can be misleading; consequently, a range of possible MCIDs should be considered. This may also be highly relevant for other neuromuscular diseases. This study provides a range of 6MWD MCIDs for LOPD, with lower MCIDs for more severe patients.

Evaluating the real-world effectiveness of belimumab in patients with SLE using SLE-related laboratory values and rheumatoid arthritis-derived disease activity measures: RAPID3, swollen joint count and tender joint count

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the real-world impact of intravenous belimumab treatment among patients with SLE using rheumatoid arthritis-derived disease activity measures and SLE-related laboratory values.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used US electronic medical record data from the United Rheumatology Normalised Integrated Community Evidence (UR-NICE) database. Adult patients with SLE who initiated intravenous belimumab between 1 January 2012 and 3 December 2019 (index), had 12 months of pre-index and 24 months of post-index clinical activity, and had ≥6 infusions of belimumab during the 24 months post-index were included. The primary outcome measure was time to first improvement of minimally important difference (MID) for Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), Patient Pain Index (PPI), swollen joint count, tender joint count (TJC), complement C3 and C4 and anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies during the on-treatment follow-up period of up to 24 months. The secondary outcome measure evaluated the trajectories of these outcome measures for up to 24 months of belimumab treatment.

RESULTS

Of 495 patients included, between 21.0% and 52.1% had ≥1 record for each of the disease activity measures or laboratory values in the pre-index and post-index periods and were included in analyses for that measure. The proportion of patients achieving MID for each measure increased rapidly within 3 months, with continued gradual improvement throughout the remaining on-treatment period, up to 24 months. After 6 months, 52.3% and 55.3% of patients had achieved MID in RAPID3 and PPI, respectively. Outcome measure trajectories indicated improved disease activity with belimumab treatment, particularly in RAPID3, TJC and laboratory values.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world effectiveness study, belimumab therapy for SLE resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in rheumatoid arthritis-derived disease activity measures within 3 months of treatment, with patients who remained on belimumab therapy experiencing improvement even up to 24 months of observation.

Clinical Relevance of Physical Function Outcomes in Cancer Cachexia

Managing clinical manifestations of cancer/treatment burden on functional status and quality of life remains paramount across the cancer trajectory, particularly for patients with cachexia who display reduced functional capacity. However, clinically relevant criteria for classifying functional impairment at a single point in time or for classifying meaningful functional changes subsequent to disease and/or treatment progression are lacking. This unmet clinical need remains a major obstacle to the development of therapies for cancer cachexia. This review aims to describe current literature-based evidence for clinically meaningful criteria for (1) functional impairment at a single timepoint between cancer patients with or without cachexia and (2) changes in physical function over time across interventional studies conducted in patients with cancer cachexia. The most common functional assessment in cross-sectional and interventional studies was hand grip strength (HGS). We observed suggestive evidence that an HGS deficit between 3 and 6 kg in cancer cachexia may display clinical relevance. In interventional studies, we observed that long-duration multimodal therapies with a focus on skeletal muscle may benefit HGS in patients with considerable weight loss. Future studies should derive cohort-specific clinically relevant criteria to confirm these observations in addition to other functional outcomes and investigate appropriate patient-reported anchors.

The minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The minimal important difference is a valuable metric in ascertaining the clinical relevance of a treatment, offering valuable guidance in patient management. There is a lack of available evidence concerning this metric in the context of outcomes related to female urinary incontinence, which might negatively impact clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures associated with urinary incontinence, calculated according to both distribution- and anchor-based methods.

METHODS

This is a systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy including the main terms for urinary incontinence and minimal important difference were used in five different databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus) in 09 June 2021 and were updated in January 09, 2024 with no limits for date, language or publication status. Studies that provided minimal important difference (distribution- or anchor-based methods) for patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence outcomes were included. The study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two different researchers. Only studies that reported the minimal important difference according to anchor-based methods were assessed by credibility and certainty of the evidence. When possible, absolute minimal important differences were calculated for each study separately according to the mean change of the group of participants that slightly improved.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. Thirteen questionnaires with their respective minimal important differences reported according to distribution (effect size, standard error of measurement, standardized response mean) and anchor-based methods were found. Most of the measures for anchor methods did not consider the smallest difference identified by the participants to calculate the minimal important difference. All reports related to anchor-based methods presented low credibility and very low certainty of the evidence. We pooled 20 different estimates of minimal important differences using data from primary studies, considering different anchors and questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high variability around the minimal important difference related to patient-reported outcome measures for urinary incontinence outcomes according to the method of analysis, questionnaires, and anchors used, however, the credibility and certainty of the evidence to support these is still limited.

Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review

Healthcare clinicians strive to make meaningful changes in patient function and participation. A minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an estimate of the magnitude of change needed to be meaningful to a patient. Clinicians and investigators may assume that a cited MCID is a valid and generalizable estimate of effect. There are, however, at least two concerns about this assumption. First, multiple methods exist for calculating an MCID that can yield divergent values and raise doubt as to which one to apply. Second, MCID values may be erroneously generalized to patients with dissimilar health conditions. With this in mind, we reviewed the methods used to calculate MCID and citations of reported MCID values for outcome measures commonly used in neurologic, orthopedic, and geriatric populations. Our goal was to assess whether the calculation methods were acknowledged in the cited work and whether the enrolled patients were similar to the sample from which the MCID estimate was derived. We found a concerning variation in the methods employed to estimate MCID. We also found a lack of transparency in identifying calculation methods and applicable health conditions in the cited work. Thus, clinicians and researchers must pay close attention and exercise caution in assuming changes in patient status that exceed a specific MCID reflect meaningful improvements in health status. A common standard for the calculation and reporting of an MCID is needed to address threats to the validity of conclusions drawn from the interpretation of an MCID.

Multifaceted ORganizational InterventiONs (M-ORION) project for prevention of depression and anxiety among workers: study protocol for a five-arm cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are the most common mental health issues experienced by workers. Although organizational intervention has been extensively evaluated as a primary prevention of depression and anxiety, the corresponding scientific evidence remains limited because of the lack of cluster randomized controlled trials (cRCT) and failure to detect organizational-level effects. Therefore, the present study aims to assess the preventive effects of four types of interventions on depression and anxiety among workers in an open, five-arm, parallel-group cRCT.

METHODS

Overall, 140 worksites and 18,200 nested employees will be recruited from September 2023. The eligible worksites will be randomly assigned to each of the five arms, and programs will be offered for 6-12 months. The five arms are 1) psychoeducation for workers, 2) psychoeducation for supervisors, 3) work environment improvement, 4) physical activity promotion, and 5) active control. The primary outcomes of interest are depression and anxiety. We will also assess psychosocial factors at work, work engagement, health-related quality of life, well-being, economic outcomes, physiological outcomes of health checkups, cortisol levels extracted from fingernails, and indices representing the process and implementation outcomes, including program completion rates. Follow-up surveys will be conducted at 6, 12, and 18 months from baseline, and the primary endpoint is set at the 6-month follow-up. Repeated-measures multi-level mixed modeling will be used to evaluate the effect of each intervention compared with the control.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Kitasato University Medical Ethics Organization (C22-082). The results and findings of this study will be published in a scientific journal and disseminated to companies that participate in the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000050949.

Preoperative patient factors that predict achieving the minimal clinically important difference following arthroscopic treatment of snapping scapula syndrome

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after arthroscopic treatment of snapping scapula syndrome (SSS) using a distribution-based method, and to identify demographic, clinical, and intraoperative factors significantly associated with the achievement of MCID. It was hypothesized that subjective satisfaction scores after the procedure would be strongly associated with the achievement of MCID thresholds for the PROs and that pain, preoperative response to injection, and a scapulectomy in addition to bursal resection would be predictive of clinically relevant improvement.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment of SSS between October 2005 and September 2020 with a minimum of 2-year short-term postoperative follow-up were enrolled in this retrospective single-center study. The MCID was calculated using a distribution-based approach for the following PROs: 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain "today" and "at worst." The association between achievement of the MCID and postoperative subjective satisfaction was investigated, and factors associated with achievement of MCID were determined using bivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of a total of 190 patients assessed for eligibility, 77 patients (38.1 ± 14.3 years; 36 females) were included. Within the study population, statistically significant improvements in postoperative SF-12 physical component summary (PCS) (P < .001) and mental component summary (MCS) (P < 0.034), ASES (P < .001), QuickDASH (P < .001), SANE (P < .001), and VAS pain (P < .001) scores were observed at the minimum 2-year follow-up. The calculated MCID threshold values based on the study population were 5.0 for SF-12 PCS, 5.8 for SF-12 MCS, 11.3 for ASES, -10.5 for QuickDASH, 14.7 for SANE, 1.5 for VAS pain, and 1.7 for VAS pain at worst. Reaching the MCID was strongly associated with postoperative satisfaction (rated on a scale of 1-10). Across the PROs, younger age, favorable preoperative response to injection, partial scapuloplasty or scapulectomy, no prior surgery, and pain and function at baseline were significantly associated with attaining MCID.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment for SSS experienced clinically significant improvements in functional scores, pain, and quality of life. This study demonstrated predictive roles for certain patient-specific factors and diagnostic variables for achieving MCID in PROs, which may help surgeons preoperatively assess the probability of success and manage patient expectations.

Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) physical function questionnaire in late-onset Pompe disease using PROPEL phase 3 data

BACKGROUND

The construct validity and interpretation of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Physical Function short form 20a (PF20a) questionnaire were evaluated for patients with late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD), a rare, autosomal recessive, progressive neuromuscular disorder treatable by enzyme replacement therapy (ERT).

METHODS

In the phase 3 PROPEL study, adults with LOPD underwent testing of physical functioning and had PRO measurements at baseline and at weeks 12, 26, 38, and 52 while receiving experimental or standard-of-care ERT. All patients were pooled for analyses, without comparisons between treatment groups. Associations and correlations between PROMIS PF20a scores and the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), % predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), manual muscle test (MMT) of the lower extremities, Gait, Stairs, Gowers' maneuver, Chair (GSGC) score, and Rasch-built Pompe-specific Activity (R-PAct) scale were evaluated by calculating regression coefficients in linear regression models and Pearson correlation coefficients (R); patients' age, sex, race, ERT prior to study, body mass index, and study treatment were included as covariables. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of PROMIS PF20a was determined using distribution- and anchor-based methods.

RESULTS

123 patients received at least 1 dose of ERT. In multivariable analyses, PROMIS PF20a scores had strong correlations with R-PAct scores (R = 0.83 at baseline and R = 0.67 when evaluating changes between baseline and 52 weeks) and moderate correlations with the 6MWD (R = 0.57 at baseline and R = 0.48 when evaluating changes between baseline and 52 weeks). Moderate correlations were also observed between PROMIS PF20a and MMT (R = 0.54), GSGC (R=-0.51), and FVC (R = 0.48) at baseline. In multivariable linear regression models, associations were significant between PROMIS PF20a and 6MWD (P = 0.0006), MMT (P = 0.0034), GSGC (P = 0.0278), and R-PAct (P < 0.0001) at baseline, between PROMIS PF20a and 6MWD (P < 0.0001), FVC (P = 0.0490), and R-PAct (P < 0.0001) when combining all measurements, and between PF20a and 6MWD (P = 0.0016) and R-PAct (P = 0.0001) when evaluating changes in scores between baseline and 52 weeks. The anchor-based and distribution-based MCID for a clinically important improvement for PROMIS PF20a were 2.4 and 4.2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS PF20a has validity as an instrument both to measure and to longitudinally follow physical function in patients with LOPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03729362. Registered 2 November 2018, https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/search?term=NCT03729362 .

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Scales Reported in Stroke Trials: A Review

There is a growing awareness of the significance of using minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in stroke research. An MCID is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is considered clinically meaningful. This review is the first to provide a comprehensive summary of various scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in stroke research and their MCID values reported in the literature, including a concise overview of the concept of and methods for determining MCIDs in stroke research. Despite the controversies and limitations surrounding the estimation of MCIDs, their importance in modern clinical trials cannot be overstated. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods are recommended for estimating MCIDs, with patient self-evaluation being a crucial component in capturing the patient's perspective on their health. A combination of methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical relevance of treatment effects, and incorporating the patient's perspective can enhance the care of stroke patients.

Baseline dependent minimally important differences for clinical outcomes of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD

INTRODUCTION

Minimally important differences (MIDs) for common outcomes of pulmonary rehabilitation are well documented for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is not known whether MIDs differ based on COPD disease characteristics. This study aimed to estimate MIDs for clinical outcomes of pulmonary rehabilitation dependent upon baseline characteristics.

METHODS

A database containing 2791 people with COPD was split into derivation (n=2245; age 66±9 years; 50% males; FEV1 47±20% predicted) and comparator (n=546; age 66±9 years; 47% males; FEV1 46±21% predicted) cohorts. MIDs were estimated using 0.5 x SD (symmetrically distributed) or 0.5 x IQR (non-symmetrically distributed) for: 6-minute walk test (6MWT), constant work rate test (CWRT), COPD assessment test (CAT), St. George's respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ), hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), and fat-free mass index (FFMI). MIDs were estimated based on baseline outcome scores, lung function, modified medical research council (mMRC) grade and FFMI.

RESULTS

MID estimates were comparable to previously reported values. MIDs for SGRQ domains (Symptom=8.7 points, Activity=7.1 points, Impact=8.1 points) and FFMI were produced (0.36kg/m2). There was greater variation of change in 6MWT, SGRQ-activity, SGRQ-impact, HADS and FFMI on which the MIDs were determined when categorising for baseline values (all, p<0.05). Greater variation of change in 6MWT on which the MIDs were determined was evident with COPD disease severity grouping (p<0.05). The magnitude of change in 6MWT, CAT, CWRT, SGRQ-activity, and FFMI with baseline mMRC score categorisation resulted in greater variation on which the MIDs were determined (all, p<0.05). Baseline stratification for FFMI resulted in greater variation of change in CWRT (p<0.001) and HADS-depression (p = 0.043) on which MIDs were determined.

DISCUSSION

Findings suggest that baseline presentation should be considered for people with COPD when assessing the efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation. However, clinical significance of the variation underpinning MIDs is yet to be determined.

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal detectable change (MDC) of Spinal Cord Ability Ruler (SCAR)

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To find minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal detectable change (MDC) of Spinal Cord Ability Ruler (SCAR) in Thai participants with spinal cord injury (SCI).

SETTING

Rehabilitation ward at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital.

METHODS

Data of individuals with SCI who were not diagnosed with central cord syndrome and were admitted for the first time for rehabilitation were analyzed. Upper extremities motor score, self-care and mobility items of Spinal Cord Independence Measure version III were collected and used to calculate SCAR difference between data on date of admission and discharge. MCID and MDC were calculated by distribution-based method and categorized for each subgroup according to SCI characteristics.

RESULTS

From data of 311 individuals, MCID of SCAR is approximately 4 for individual with tetraplegia AIS A, B, C; and individual with AIS D at any level, and 2 for individual with paraplegia AIS A, B, C. MDC of SCAR should be 1 for individual with tetraplegia AIS A, B, C; and individual with AIS D at any level and 0.5 for individual with paraplegia AIS A, B, C.

CONCLUSION

This study provides MCID and MDC of SCAR in each subgroup. These values could be used as a benchmark for clinicians and researchers to determine whether participant has significant improvement or not after receiving an intervention.

Ascertainment of Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Diabetes Distress Scale-17: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The Diabetes Distress Scale-17 (DDS-17) is a common measure of diabetes distress. Despite its popularity, there are no agreed-on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for the DDS-17.

Objective

To establish a distribution-based metric for MCID in the DDS-17 and its 4 subscale scores (interpersonal distress, physician distress, regimen distress, and emotional distress).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial used baseline and postintervention data from a hybrid (implementation-effectiveness) trial evaluating Empowering Patients in Chronic Care (EPICC) vs an enhanced form of usual care (EUC). Participants included adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] level >8.0%) who received primary care during the prior year in participating Department of Veterans Affairs clinics across Illinois, Indiana, and Texas. Data collection was completed in November 2018, and data analysis was completed in June 2023.

Interventions

Participants in EPICC attended 6 group sessions led by health care professionals based on collaborative goal-setting theory. EUC included diabetes education.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was distribution-based MCID values for the total DDS-17 and 4 DDS-17 subscales, calculated using the standard error of measurement. Baseline to postintervention changes in DDS-17 and its 4 subscale scores were grouped into 3 categories: improved, no change, and worsened. Multilevel logistic and linear regression models examined associations between treatment group and MCID change categories and whether improvement in HbA1c varied in association with MCID category.

Results

A total of 248 individuals with complete DDS-17 data were included (mean [SD] age, 67.4 [8.3] years; 235 [94.76%] men), with 123 participants in the EPICC group and 125 participants in the EUC group. The MCID value for DDS-17 was 0.25 and MCID values for the 4 distress subscales were 0.38 for emotional and interpersonal distress and 0.39 for physician and regimen distress. Compared with EUC, more EPICC participants were in the MCID improvement category on DDS-17 (63 participants [51.22%] vs 40 participants [32.00%]; P = .003) and fewer EPICC participants were in the worsened category (20 participants [16.26%] vs 39 participants [31.20%]; P = .008). There was no direct association of DDS-17 MCID improvement (β = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.10; P = .17) or worsening (β = 0.18; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.59; P = .38) with HbA1c levels among all participants.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, an MCID improvement or worsening of more than 0.25 on the DDS-17 was quantitatively significant and patients in the EPICC group were more likely to experience improvement than those in the EUC group.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01876485.

Pearls and pitfalls of PROMIS clinically significant outcomes in orthopaedic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed as a uniform and generalizable PROM system using item response theory and computer adaptive testing. We aimed to assess the utilization of PROMIS for clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) measurements and provide insights into its use in orthopaedic research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed PROMIS CSO reports for orthopaedic procedures via PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to 2022, excluding abstracts and missing measurements. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and questionnaire compliance. PROMIS domains, CSO measures, and study populations were described. A meta-analysis compared distribution and anchor-based MCIDs in low-bias (NOS ≥ 7) studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 54 publications from 2016 to 2022 were reviewed. PROMIS CSO studies were observational with increasing publication rates. Evidence-level was II in 10/54, bias low in 51/54, and compliance ≥ 86% in 46/54. Most (28/54) analysed lower extremity procedures. PROMIS domains examined Pain Function (PF) in 44/54, Pain Interference (PI) in 36/54, and Depression (D) in 18/54. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reported in 51/54 and calculated based on distribution in 39/51 and anchor in 29/51. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and minimal detectable change (MDC) were reported in ≤ 10/54. MCIDs were not significantly greater than MDCs. Anchor-based MCIDs were greater than distribution based MCIDs (standardized mean difference = 0.44, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS CSOs are increasingly utilized, especially for lower extremity procedures assessing the PF, PI, and D domains using distribution-based MCID. Using more conservative anchor-based MCIDs and reporting MDCs may strengthen results. Researchers should consider unique pearls and pitfalls when assessing PROMIS CSOs.

Patient-Specific Variables Associated with Failure to Achieve Clinically Significant Outcomes After Meniscal Allograft Transplantation at Minimum 5 Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To determine the improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) necessary to achieve minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) after primary meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) at a minimum of 5-year follow-up, while identifying variables predictive of achieving clinically significant outcomes (CSOs).

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify patients undergoing primary MAT at a single institution from 1999 to 2016. Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales were collected before surgery and at a minimum of 5-year follow-up. A distribution-based approach was used to calculate MCID, whereas an anchor-based approach was used to calculate SCB and PASS. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with CSO achievement.

RESULTS

A total of 202 patients undergoing MAT (56% medial, 44% lateral) were included with a mean follow-up of 9.8 ± 4.1 years, age of 29.7 ± 8.5 years, and body mass index (BMI) of 26.5 ± 4.7. Thresholds for achieving MCID, PASS, and SCB, respectively, at a minimum 5-year follow-up for Lysholm (10.3, 74.5, 32.5), IKDC (12.1, 55.6, 29.1), and KOOS subscales questionnaires (Pain [11.0, 70.7, 25.1], Symptoms [11.0, 60.8, 19.6], Activities of Daily Living [10.5, 90.3, 17.9], Sport [16.2, 47.4, 37.5], and Quality of Life [13.6, 40.5, 37.3]) were calculated. Reduced odds of achieving MCID were associated with higher preoperative PROM scores, BMI, patient age, concomitant osteotomy, male sex, and worker's compensation (WC) status. Reduced odds of achieving PASS were associated with lower preoperative PROM scores, higher BMI (particularly ≥30), patient age, and WC status. Reduced odds of achieving SCB were associated with higher preoperative PROM scores and WC status.

CONCLUSIONS

This study established the MCID, PASS, and SCB at 5-year minimum follow-up for the Lysholm score, IKDC, and KOOS subscales in patients who underwent MAT. Increased BMI and patient age, male sex, performance of concomitant osteotomy, WC status, and preoperative PROM scores were associated with failure to achieve CSOs after primary MAT at a minimum of 5-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study, retrospective case series.

Precision in treatment evaluation: importance of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of outcome measures for autoimmune blistering diseases

Autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs) comprise a group of rare conditions marked by autoantibodies that specifically target intercellular adhesion molecules. Despite the progress made in comprehending the disease and the increasing number of treatment options available, there is still no definitive cure for AIBDs such as pemphigus, and it continues to have a devastating impact on those affected. The challenges in achieving new approved therapies for AIBDs are complex and multifaceted. One significant obstacle was the prior lack of validated and standardized outcome measures, which are crucial for ensuring precise comparisons between new and traditional therapies. This gap in knowledge has prompted the development of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs), which enable efficient and reliable comparison of therapeutic outcomes between trials. MCID is defined as the minimum difference in an outcome measure that indicates a clinically significant improvement/deterioration in disease severity. Additionally, MCIDs provide a patient-centered approach to evaluating treatment efficacy, by considering whether patients experience a subjective improvement in their symptoms. Therefore, this literature review will examine the derivation and significance of MCIDs for various scoring systems in AIBDs.

Perspectives of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer on symptoms, impacts on daily activities, and thresholds for meaningful change: a qualitative research study

Introduction

Advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with significant symptom burden. It is important to understand the impact of these disease-and treatment-related symptoms on patients' daily lives and explore from a patient perspective what constitutes a meaningful change in NSCLC symptoms.

Methods

Patient experience of advanced or metastatic NSCLC was explored in this prospective, non-interventional qualitative research study recruiting patients from the United States (US). Interviews were conducted to explore the most important symptoms, daily life impacts, and patients' perspectives of what constitutes meaningful change when considering their current symptoms versus 6-12 months prior, based on the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) items.

Results

Between February and April 2022, 19 US-based patients with Stage IV NSCLC were recruited; 95% were female, 63% were White, 79% had been diagnosed >1 year prior, and 63% were receiving targeted therapy. Over half the patients indicated their most important symptoms were fatigue, shortness of breath, and cough. Patient differentiation between whether symptoms were disease- or treatment-related lacked concordance, and often patients were unable to distinguish the two. The most frequently mentioned impacts of these symptoms on patients' daily lives were difficulty walking, sleep disturbance, anxiety/depression, impact on relationships, and difficulty doing daily tasks. Most patients considered a one-point change on the PGI-S or PGI-C to be meaningful based on rating their symptom severity at the time of the interview compared with 6-12 months before the interview.

Conclusion

Based on their own symptom experience, patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC indicated a one-point threshold for meaningful change, whether improvement or worsening. This suggests a one-point change on the PGI-S or PGI-C may be a potential anchor for patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints used in clinical trials. It is important to use PRO instruments that capture the symptoms and impacts identified as most important to patients. These findings highlight the importance of using qualitative methods to assess disease-related symptoms, treatment-related side effects, and the impacts on daily life for patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC, underscoring how qualitative assessments can complement quantitative PRO instruments for evaluating clinical trials.

The anchor design of anchor-based method to determine the minimal clinically important difference: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Positive results for clinical outcomes should be not only statistically significant, but also clinically significant. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to define the minimum threshold of clinical significance. The anchor-based method is a classical method for ascertaining MCID. This study aimed to summarise the design of the anchors of the anchor-based method by reviewing the existing research and providing references and suggestions.

METHOD

This study was mainly based on literature research. We performed a systematic search using Web of Science, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted from eligible articles using a predefined data collection form. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and the involvement of a third reviewer.

RESULT

Three hundred and forty articles were retained for final analysis. For the design of anchors, Subjective anchors (99.12%) were the most common type of anchor used, mainly the Patient's rating of change or patient satisfaction (66.47%) and related scale health status evaluation items or scores (39.41%). Almost half of the studies (48.53%) did not assess the correlation test between the anchor and the research indicator or scale. The cut-off values and grouping were usually based on the choice of the anchor types. In addition, due to the large number of included studies, this study selected the most calculated SF-36 (28 articles) for an in-depth analysis. The results showed that the overall design of the anchor and the cut-off value were the same as above. The statistical methods used were mostly traditional (mean change, ROC). The MCID thresholds of these studies had a wide range (SF-36 PCS: 2-17.4, SF-36 MCS: 1.46-10.28), and different anchors or statistical methods lead to different results.

CONCLUSION

It is of great importance to select several types of anchors and to use more reliable statistical methods to calculate the MCID. It is suggested that the order of selection of anchors should be: objective anchors > anchors with established MCID in subjective anchors (specific scale > generic scale) > ranked anchors in subjective anchors. The selection of internal anchors should be avoided, and anchors should be evaluated by a correlation test.

Reporting of PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trial design contributes to ensuring the research objectives and outcome measures are relevant to patients. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the primary outcome influences trial design and feasibility and should be predicated on PPI. We aimed to determine current practice of reporting PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Following a search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, we included primary publications of phase III/IV RCTs, in English, inclusive of any medical specialty or type of intervention, that reported a health-related outcome. We excluded protocols and secondary publications of RCTs. We extracted RCT characteristics, the use of PPI, and use of the MCID.

RESULTS

Between 1 July 2019 and 13 January 2020, 123 phase III/IV RCTs matched our eligibility criteria. Ninety percent evaluated a medical rather than surgical intervention. Oncology accounted for 21% of all included RCTs. Only 2.4% (n = 3) and 1.6% (n = 2) RCTs described PPI and the MCID respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI and the MCID are poorly reported, so it is uncertain how these contributed to trial design. Improvement in the reporting of these items would increase confidence that results are relevant and clinically significant to patients, contributing to improving the overall trial design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Night-to-Night Variability of Polysomnography-Derived Physiologic Endotypic Traits in Patients With Moderate to Severe OSA

BACKGROUND

Emerging data suggest that determination of physiologic endotypic traits (eg, loop gain) may enable precision medicine in OSA.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does a single-night assessment of polysomnography-derived endotypic traits provide reliable estimates in moderate to severe OSA?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Two consecutive in-lab polysomnography tests from a clinical trial (n = 67; male, 69%; mean ± SD age, 61 ± 10 years; apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] 53 ± 22 events/h) were used for the reliability analysis. Endotypic traits, reflecting upper airway collapsibility (ventilation at eupneic drive [Vpassive]), upper airway dilator muscle tone (ventilation at the arousal threshold [Vactive]), loop gain (stability of ventilatory control, LG1), and arousal threshold (ArTh) were determined. Reliability was expressed as an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Minimal detectable differences (MDDs) were computed to provide an estimate of maximum spontaneous variability. Further assessment across four repeated polysomnography tests was performed in a subcohort (n = 22).

RESULTS

Reliability of endotypic traits between the two consecutive nights was moderate to good (ICC: Vpassive = 0.82, Vactive = 0.76, LG1 = 0.72, ArTh = 0.83). Variability in AHI, but not in body position or in sleep stages, was associated with fluctuations in Vpassive and Vactive (r = -0.49 and r = -0.41, respectively; P < .001 for both). MDDs for single-night assessments were: Vpassive = 22, Vactive = 34, LG1 = 0.17, and ArTh = 21. Multiple assessments (mean of two nights, n = 22) further reduced MDDs by approximately 20% to 30%.

INTERPRETATION

Endotypic trait analysis using a single standard polysomnography shows acceptable reliability and reproducibility in patients with moderate to severe OSA. The reported MDDs of endotypic traits may facilitate the quantification of relevant changes and may guide future evaluation of interventions in OSA.

Comparison of Outcome Measures (Subjective, Objective, and Patient-Based) in Laryngeal Dystonia Treatment With Botulinum Toxin A Injection

BACKGROUND

Outcome assessment in laryngeal dystonia is hindered by lack of consensus on a core set of outcome measures to quantify treatment effect and disease severity on quality of life. Potential outcome measure domains include objective voice, clinician reported, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for determining treatment success and longitudinal disease tracking. We aim to determine correlations between a selections of outcome measure tools following Botulinum toxin injection.

METHODS

A selection of instruments were administered to assess adductor laryngeal dystonia patient outcomes before and after Botulinum toxin injection. Voice samples recorded using a cellular telephone application were used for objective acoustic measures (CPPS, acoustic voice quality index) and speech language pathologist perceptual analysis (CAPE-V). Additionally, patients completed a PROMs battery consisting of the Voice Handicap Index-10, Communicative Participation Item Bank-10, OMNI-Vocal Effort Scale, 3 visual analog scale (VAS) questions. Changes in these outcome measures pre-post treatment were compared between each other and with a global rating of change questionnaire (GRCQ) using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Twenty six patients (20 female, mean age 57.7 years) participated. Using an anchor based GRCQ, patients reported Botox efficacy was the only outcome measure found to have significant correlation (r = 0.54, P = 0.022); all other outcome measures did not meet statistically significant correlation. Amongst the selected outcome tools, several moderate-strong correlations were identified, largely for outcome measures within the same domain. Most notable were correlations between the patient reported OMNI-VES and VAS questions (r > 0.68, P < 0.05), clinician CAPE-V strain and overall severity (r = 0.900, P < 0.001), and acoustic voice quality index with sustained vowel CPPs (r = -0.797, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Correlation between outcome measures instruments used for patients with adductor laryngeal dystonia requires further attention. Weak correlations with an anchor based GRCQ were found for this study's selected outcome instruments. A select number of correlations were found between outcome instruments within each of the individual outcome measure domains (patient perception, clinical perception, objective acoustics), but there was largely a lack of correlation found for instruments between these three separate domains.

Psychometrics of patient-reported bother from side effects of treatment single-items in industry-sponsored oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Improvements in cancer treatment have increased the number of cancer survivors, but also increased the long-term and late effects from cancer therapy. Patient reported "side effect bother" could be used to measure the burden of treatment, and the risk for negative outcomes such as dose reduction, treatment delay or discontinuation. The current study addresses the psychometric properties of a single item, determines what represents a "meaningful change", and evaluates the correlation to safety endpoints and functioning.

METHODS

Results from 5911 patients enrolled in 8 clinical trials representing 5 disease types in oncology and hematology who completed either the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) GP5 item or a modified bother item (MBI) were assessed.

RESULTS

Patients ranged in age from 18 to 93 years, with all cancer stages represented and approximately equal numbers of males and females. Test-retest reliability was acceptable, as were convergent and known groups validity. The GP5 and MBI effectively demonstrated sensitivity to change over time and established meaningful thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that these single-items are psychometrically sound, capable of distinguishing known groups, responsive to change and can identify meaningful change over time in terms of treatment-related symptoms. It extends the findings of recent scientific groups by providing analyses not included in prior studies, and further supports the FDA's recommendation to include a single item question in clinical trials.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Is Not as Responsive as Legacy Scores in Detecting Patient Outcomes in Hip Preservation: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate publication trends of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in hip preservation literature, assess the usage of PROMIS as an outcome measure, and evaluate correlations of all available published PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases were queried for articles evaluating PROMIS scores among hip preservation populations. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies with Level IV evidence or above (per the Sackett et al. levels of evidence), such as case series and cohort studies, reporting on perioperative use of hip PROMIS scores. Exclusion criteria consisted of arthroplasty and trauma studies. Patient demographics, PROMIS usage, and PROMIS Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients to historic PROs were recorded for each study.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published between 2017 and 2021 were included in the analysis, with the majority (75%) published between 2020 and 2021. Studies assessing postoperative outcomes had follow-up periods ranging from 6 months to 5 years. The most common PROMIS domain reported was Physical Function (PF), and there was varying usage of other domains including Pain Intensity, Anxiety, and Depression. PROMIS validity was most often assessed in comparison to the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) by calculating the Pearson coefficient, which assumes normal data distribution, or Spearman coefficient, which is rank-based and does not require normal data distribution. Studies comparing PROMIS-PF with mHHS reported Pearson coefficients ranging from 0.49 to 0.72 and Spearman coefficients ranging from 0.67 to 0.71.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a chronologic increase in PROMIS usage in hip preservation literature. PROMIS demonstrates moderate-to-strong correlations with legacy PROs, but there is substantial heterogeneity in follow-up periods, PROMIS domains used, and statistical methodology. The current data show that PROMIS is not as responsive as historically used, validated PROs in quantitatively assessing function and pain in hip preservation patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons using PROMIS solely should be aware that the score may not be as responsive as legacy PROs in closely assessing improvements or deterioration in patient performance after hip preservation surgery. Rather than being used alone, PROMIS may be useful as a replacement for a group of legacy PROs. Thus, when used alongside select legacy PROs, overall questionnaire burden can be reduced while maintaining a high level of accuracy in assessing health status.

Impacts of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the responses to the subsequent EQ-5D-5L

BACKGROUND

In clinical studies, the EQ-5D-5L is often employed with disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. The questions in the former are more general than the latter; however, it is known that responses to general questions can be influenced by preceding specific questions. Thus, the responses to the EQ-5D-5L have the possibility of being influenced by the preceding disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. This may lead to bias in the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the EQ-5D-5L responses.

METHODS

We prepared questionnaire booklets containing the EQ-5D-5L, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General with different orders. Using a quasi-randomized design, they were distributed to the patients undergoing drug therapy for advanced cancer, who were classified into three groups: Groups 1, 2, and 3 (the EQ-5D-5L placed first, second, and last, respectively). We compared the EQ-5D-5L index and the missingness of EQ-5D-5L among the groups.

RESULTS

The mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.796, 0.760, and 0.789 for groups 1 (n = 300), 2 (n = 306), and 3 (n = 331), respectively. The difference between Groups 2 and 1 was - 0.036 (95% CI - 0.065 to - 0.007; p = 0.015). The proportion of patients with an incomplete EQ-5D-5L was 0.11, 0.11, and 0.05 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference of the proportions between group 3 and 1 and between 3 and 2 was - 0.06 (95% CI - 0.10 to - 0.02; p = 0.003) and - 0.06 (95% CI - 0.10 to - 0.02; p = 0.003), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the EQ-5D-5L index differed according to the instrument orders, the difference size would not be considerably larger than the minimally important difference. The patients tended to complete the EQ-5D-5L when they were placed at the end of the questionnaire.

Physical activity in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Longitudinal change and minimal clinically important difference

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Reference values of physical activity to interpret longitudinal changes are not available in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This study aimed to define the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) of longitudinal changes in physical activity in patients with IPF.

METHODS

Using accelerometry, physical activity (steps per day) was measured and compared at baseline and 6-months follow-up in patients with IPF. We calculated MCID of daily step count using multiple anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Forced vital capacity and 6-minute walk distance were applied as anchors in anchor-based methods. Effect size and standard error of measurement were used to calculate MCID in distribution-based methods.

RESULTS

One-hundred and five patients were enrolled in the study (mean age: 68.5 ± 7.5 years). Step count significantly decreased from baseline to 6-months follow-up (-461 ± 2402, p = .031). MCID calculated by anchor-based and distribution-based methods ranged from 570-1358 steps.

CONCLUSION

Daily step count significantly declined over 6-months in patients with IPF. MCID calculated by multiple anchor-based and distribution-based methods was 570 to 1358 steps/day. These findings contribute to interpretation of the longitudinal changes of physical activity that will assist its use as a clinical and research outcome in patients with IPF.

Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors

Background

Fatigue is a highly prevalent and disabling symptom in cancer survivors. Although many measures have been developed to assess survivors’ fatigue, their ability to accurately capture change following intervention has rarely been assessed in post-treatment survivors. Ultra-brief fatigue measures are preferable in clinical practice but have limited evidence supporting their use with cancer survivors. We examined the psychometric properties of four Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) measures, including the new FSI-3, in cancer survivors. Examined properties included responsiveness to change and minimally important differences (MIDs).

Methods

We analyzed data from three randomized controlled trials with post-treatment cancer survivors (N = 328). Responsiveness to change was evaluated by comparing standardized response means for survivors who reported their fatigue as being better, the same, or worse at 2–3 months. Responsiveness to intervention was assessed via effect sizes, and MIDs were estimated by using several methods. We also computed area under the curve (AUC) values to assess FSI measures’ discriminative accuracy compared to an established cut-point.

Results

All FSI measures differentiated survivors who reported improvement at 2–3 months from those with stable fatigue, but did not uniformly differentiate worsening fatigue from stable fatigue. Measures showed similar levels of responsiveness to intervention, and MIDs ranged from 0.29 to 2.20 across FSI measures. AUC analyses supported the measures’ ability to detect significant fatigue.

Conclusions

Four FSI scales show similar responsiveness to change, and estimated MIDs can inform assessment of meaningful change in fatigue. The FSI-3 shows promise as an ultra-brief fatigue measure for survivors.

How strong should my anchor be for estimating group and individual level meaningful change? A simulation study assessing anchor correlation strength and the impact of sample size, distribution of change scores and methodology on establishing a true meaningful change threshold

PURPOSE

Treatment benefit as assessed using clinical outcome assessments (COAs), is a key endpoint in many clinical trials at both the individual and group level. Anchor-based methods can aid interpretation of COA change scores beyond statistical significance, and help derive a meaningful change threshold (MCT). However, evidence-based guidance on the selection of appropriately related anchors is lacking.

METHODS

A simulation was conducted which varied sample size, change score variability and anchor correlation strength to assess the impact of these variables on recovering the simulated MCT for interpreting individual and group-level results. To assess MCTs derived at the individual-level (i.e. responder definitions; RDs), Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Predictive Modelling (PM) analyses were conducted. To assess MCTs for interpreting change at the group-level, the mean change method was conducted.

RESULTS

Sample sizes, change score variability and magnitude of anchor correlation affected accuracy of the estimated MCT. For individual-level RDs, ROC curves were less accurate than PM methods at recovering the true MCT. For both methods, smaller samples led to higher variability in the returned MCT, but higher variability still using ROC. Anchors with weaker correlations with COA change scores had increased variability in the estimated MCT. An anchor correlation of around 0.50-0.60 identified a true MCT cut-point under certain conditions using ROC. However, anchor correlations as low as 0.30 were appropriate when using PM under certain conditions. For interpreting group-level results, the MCT derived using the mean change method was consistently underestimated regardless of the anchor correlation.

CONCLUSION

Sample size and change score variability influence the necessary anchor correlation strength when recovering individual-level RDs. Often, this needs to be higher than the commonly accepted threshold of 0.30. Stronger correlations than 0.30 are required when using the mean change method. Results can assist researchers selecting and assessing the quality of anchors.

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of minimal important differences for generic multiattribute utility instruments

INTRODUCTION

Generic multiattribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are efficient tools for determining and enumerating health-related quality of life. MAUIs accomplish this by generating health state utilities (HSUs) via algorithms. Minimal important differences (MIDs) assist with the interpretation of HSUs by estimating minimum changes that are clinically significant. The overall goal of the proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is the development of comprehensive guidelines for MID estimation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol defines a systematic review and meta-analysis of MIDs for generic MAUIs. The proposed research will involve a comprehensive investigation of 10 databases (EconLit, IDEAs database, INAHTA database, Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Emcare, JBIEBP and CINAHL) from 1 June 2022 to 7 June 2022, and will be performed and reported in accordance with several validated guidelines, principally the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The quality of papers, considered for inclusion in the review, will be appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments, inter alia.Narrative analysis will involve identifying the characteristics of MIDs including methods of calculation, sources of heterogeneity, and validation. Meta-analysis will also be conducted. The descriptive element of meta-analysis will involve the generation of I² statistics and Galbraith plots of MID heterogeneity. Together with narrative analysis, this will allow sources of MID heterogeniety to be identified. A multilevel mixed model, estimated via restricted maximum likelihood estimation, will be constructed for the purposes of meta-regression. Meta-regression will attempt to enumerate the effects of sources of heterogeneity on MID estimates. Meta-analysis will be concluded with pooling of MIDs via a linear random-effects model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this review, as it will aggregate data from published literature. Methods of dissemination will include publication in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as presentation at conferences and seminars.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021261821.

Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Chinese Version of the Motor Function Measure-32 in Children and Adolescents with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the Motor Function Measure 32-Chinese version (MFM 32-CN) in children and adolescents with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).

METHODS

This observational, prospective cohort study assessed changes in motor function over 12 months using the MFM 32-CN in 108 pediatric patients with DMD.

RESULTS

Moderate to high internal responsiveness was found for MFM total, D1, and D2 scores (SRM = 0.46-0.83). Sufficient external responsiveness was observed in all MFM scores, as determined by a good correlation with the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) ratings (r = 0.54-0.72, p < .01). The estimated MCID values derived from different anchor-based methods ranged from 4.7 to 6.0, with a median of 5.0 points (%).

CONCLUSION

The MFM 32-CN demonstrates sufficient internal and external responsiveness as a measure of motor function in children and adolescents with DMD. The present study established the MCID of MFM-32 in pediatric patients with DMD.

Substantial Inconsistency and Variability Exists Among Minimum Clinically Important Differences for Shoulder Arthroplasty Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As the value of patient-reported outcomes becomes increasingly recognized, minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds have seen greater use in shoulder arthroplasty. However, MCIDs are unique to certain populations, and variation in the modes of calculation in this field may be of concern. With the growing utilization of MCIDs within the field and value-based care models, a detailed appraisal of the appropriateness of MCID use in the literature is necessary and has not been systematically reviewed.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We performed a systematic review of MCID quantification in existing studies on shoulder arthroplasty to answer the following questions: (1) What is the range of values reported for the MCID in commonly used shoulder arthroplasty patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)? (2) What percentage of studies use previously existing MCIDs versus calculating a new MCID? (3) What techniques for calculating the MCID were used in studies where a new MCID was calculated?

METHODS

The Embase, PubMed, and Ovid/MEDLINE databases were queried from December 2008 through December 2020 for total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty articles reporting an MCID value for various PROMs. Two reviewers (DAK, MAM) independently screened articles for eligibility, specifically identifying articles that reported MCID values for PROMs after shoulder arthroplasty, and extracted data for analysis. Each study was classified into two categories: those referencing a previously defined MCID and those using a newly calculated MCID. Methods for determining the MCID for each study and the variability of reported MCIDs for each PROM were recorded. The number of patients, age, gender, BMI, length of follow-up, surgical indications, and surgical type were extracted for each article. Forty-three articles (16,408 patients) with a mean (range) follow-up of 20 months (0.75 to 68) met the inclusion criteria. The median (range) BMI of patients was 29.3 kg/m2 (28.0 to 32.2 kg/m2), and the median (range) age was 68 years (53 to 84). There were 17 unique PROMs with MCID values. Of the 112 MCIDs reported, the most common PROMs with MCIDs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) (23% [26 of 112]), the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) (17% [19 of 112]), and the Constant (15% [17 of 112]).

RESULTS

The ranges of MCID values for each PROM varied widely (ASES: 6.3 to 29.5; SST: 1.4 to 4.0; Constant: -0.3 to 12.8). Fifty-six percent (24 of 43) of studies used previously established MCIDs, with 46% (11 of 24) citing one study. Forty-four percent (19 of 43) of studies established new MCIDs, and the most common technique was anchor-based (37% [7 of 19]), followed by distribution (21% [4 of 19]).

CONCLUSION

There is substantial inconsistency and variability in the quantification and reporting of MCID values in shoulder arthroplasty studies. Many shoulder arthroplasty studies apply previously published MCID values with variable ranges of follow-up rather than calculating population-specific thresholds. The use of previously calculated MCIDs may be acceptable in specific situations; however, investigators should select an anchor-based MCID calculated from a patient population as similar as possible to their own. This practice is preferable to the use of distribution-approach MCID methods. Alternatively, authors may consider using substantial clinical benefit or patient-acceptable symptom state to assess outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although MCIDs may provide a useful effect-size based alternative to the traditional p value, care must be taken to use an MCID that is appropriate for the particular patient population being studied.

Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the personal impact of epilepsy scale (PIES)

INTRODUCTION

The Personal Impact of Epilepsy Scale (PIES) assesses patient functional status in subscales of (1) seizure impact, (2) medication effects, (3) mood & social status, and (4) overall quality of life. This study was designed to determine the Minimal Clinically Important Change (MCID) in PIES subscale and total scores that demonstrate improvement.

METHODS

To ascertain the correspondence of PIES score change and clinical status change (improved, same, worse) in each PIES subscale and total score, we used two distinct retrospective anchor-based assessments of clinical status (patient self-assessment and trained rater assessment) across two clinic visits. Mean PIES scores were compared between clinical status groups, controlling for days between visits and initial clinical status. Personal Impact of Epilepsy Scale score change was quantified for each group to determine MCID. A small prospective proof-of-concept study was conducted in a separate subject group.

RESULTS

Patient self-report anchor analysis demonstrated lower (better) PIES scores in the "improved" group vs the "worse" group on the mood & social subscale (p < .001) and total score (p = .002), with a similar trend on the seizure subscale (p = 0.056). Clinical rater anchor analysis demonstrated lower PIES scores in the "improved" vs "worse" group in the mood & social subscale (p = .029) and a trend in total score (p = .082). For the "improved" group, the reduction in PIES scores between visits averaged across both anchor analyses was 8.14% for subscales and 8.67% for total score.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Reduction of 8% on a PIES subscale or total score indicates meaningful improvement in patient clinical status, and is designated the MCID for this instrument. Personal Impact of Epilepsy Scale can be useful in day-to-day clinical care and as an outcome metric in clinical research.

Minimal and robust clinically important difference of three fatigue measures in chronic stroke survivors

BACKGROUND

Fatigue assessment scale (FAS), fatigue subscale of the Profile of Mood States (POMS-F), and vitality subscale of the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36-VT) are among the first and most widely used adapted tools for assessing post-stroke fatigue.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and robust clinically important difference (RCID) of FAS, POMS-F, and SF-36-VT in stroke survivors.

METHODS

Participants completed the FAS, POMS-F, and SF-36-VT before and after receiving 6-week intervention including graded activity training and pacing therapy. MCID was calculated using the distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Further, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of calculated values using the distribution-based method were used for determining RCID.

RESULT

A total of 124 stroke survivors participated in this study. MCID for FAS, POMS-F, and SF-36-VT was found to be 4.86, 3.32, and -10.10 (using score change) and 3.5, 2.5, and -10.5 (using ROC analysis), respectively. Using the distribution-based method, the MCID value obtained for the FAS was in the range of 3.16 to 8.76, for the POMS-F was in the range of 1.49 to 5.63, and for the SF-36-VT was in the range of -15.43 to -5.58. ½SD for FAS, ½ SD and 1.96 SEM for POMS-F, and 1.96 SEM and SD for SF-36-VT showed the best discriminative ability to use as the RCID.

CONCLUSIONS

The MCID and RCID were calculated for FAS, POMS-F, and SF-36-VT using different methods. The results can be used by researchers and clinicians for interpreting their findings in subjects similar to those who participated in this study.

Responsiveness of the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life Cognition Banks in Recent Brain Injury

Patient report of functioning is one component of the neurocognitive exam following traumatic brain injury, and standardized patient-reported outcomes measures are useful to track outcomes during rehabilitation. The Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life measurement system (TBI-QOL) is a TBI-specific extension of the PROMIS and Neuro-QoL measurement systems that includes 20 item banks across physical, emotional, social, and cognitive domains. Previous research has evaluated the responsiveness of the TBI-QOL measures in community-dwelling individuals and found clinically important change over a 6-month assessment interval in a sample of individuals who were on average 5 years post-injury. In the present study, we report on the responsiveness of the TBI-QOL Cognition–General Concerns and Executive Function item bank scores and the Cognitive Health Composite scores in a recently injured sample over a 1-year study period. Data from 128 participants with complicated mild, moderate, or severe TBI within the previous 6 months were evaluated. The majority of the sample was male, white, and non-Hispanic. The participants were 18–92 years of age and were first evaluated from 0 to 5 months post-injury. Eighty participants completed the 1-year follow-up assessment. Results show acceptable standard response mean values (0.47–0.51) for all measures and minimal detectable change values ranging from 8.2 to 8.8 T-score points for Cognition–General Concerns and Executive Functioning measures. Anchor rating analysis revealed that changes in scores on the Executive Function item bank and the Cognitive Health Composite were meaningfully associated with participant-reported changes in the areas of attention, multitasking, and memory. Evaluation of change score differences by a variety of clinical indicators demonstrated a small but significant difference in the three TBI-QOL change scores by TBI injury severity grouping. These results support the responsiveness of the TBI-QOL cognition measures in newly injured individuals and provides information on the minimal important differences for the TBI-QOL cognition measures, which can be used for score interpretation by clinicians and researchers seeking patient-reported outcome measures of self-reported cognitive QOL after TBI.

Effectiveness of a peer group-based online intervention program in empowering families of children with disabilities at home

BACKGROUND

The empowerment of families raising children with disabilities (CWD) is crucial in maintaining their health. We developed an evidence-based, family empowerment intervention program focusing on social resource utilization and reducing care burden.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the program's effectiveness in promoting family empowerment.

METHODS

We compared an intervention group that started the online intervention program a week after initial evaluation and a group that received delayed intervention (waitlist-controlled group) at three time points: initial (T1), post-course (T2), and follow-up (T3). The required sample size was 52.

RESULTS

There were 60 participants who applied to the program. One participant dropped out due to scheduling issues, and the others were assigned to either the intervention group (n = 29) or the waitlist-controlled group (n = 30). Those who responded to the baseline questionnaire (T1: 26 from the intervention group; 29 from the waitlist-controlled group) comprised the final sample. Among them, 20 members of the intervention group and 20 of the waitlist-controlled group attended all four sessions (completion rates of 77% and 69%, respectively). The attendance rate for sessions 1-4 was 94%, 89%, 81%, and 83%, respectively. The participant numbers in each session ranged from 5 to 18 per month. The baseline outcome score did not differ between the groups. The primary outcome, family empowerment, measured using the family empowerment scale (FES), was significantly higher at T2 for the intervention group than in the waitlist-controlled group and was sustained in the sensitivity analysis. The intervention group's FES, in the family relationships (FA) and relationships with service systems (SS) subdomains, increased significantly, unlike involvement with the community (SP). The intervention group experienced lower care burden and higher self-compassion, especially in the isolation and over-identification items of the self-compassion scale-short form (SCS-SF). The intervention group's FES (total, FA, SS) and SCS-SF (total, common humanity, isolation) changed significantly between T1 and T2, and all, except common humanity, were sustained up to T3; this group's FES (SP) and SCS (negative score, over-identification) changed significantly between T1 and T3. The waitlist-controlled group's FES (total, FA) and SCS (total) changed significantly and were sustained between T2 and T3.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed intervention program promotes family empowerment in families of CWD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered as a clinical trial in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000050422, UMIN000044172).

Understanding Clinical Significance in Rehabilitation: A Primer for Researchers and Clinicians

ABSTRACT

The objective of this review was to summarize the concept of clinical significance and associated methods focusing on the area of rehabilitation to provide a resource to rehabilitation researchers and clinicians. Studies were searched on electronic databases from inception until July 28, 2020, with no date or language limits. Manual searches as well as Scopus forward citation for relevant references were performed. Narrative synthesis of study results was performed. Definitions of the concepts related to clinical significance, ways of calculating, and interpreting each method were provided using rehabilitation examples. An explanation of methods to evaluate clinical significance (distribution, anchor, and opinion-based methods) and their advantages and disadvantages were also provided. Considering the limitations of statistical significance in assuring meaningfulness of results, clinical interpretation of research outcomes and the report of clinical significance in intervention trials should be a priority in rehabilitation research. When possible, the use of multiple methods (distribution, anchor, and opinion based) is recommended. Thus, clinical researchers are encouraged to present results in a manner that allow the rehabilitation professionals to easily interpret and implement those results in their clinical practice.

A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To systematically survey the literature addressing the reporting of studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) and choice of optimal MIDs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched Medline, Embase and PsycINFO from 1987 to March 2020. Teams of two reviewers independently identified eligible publications and extracted quotations addressing relevant issues for reporting and/or selecting anchor-based MIDs. Using a coding list, we assigned the same code to quotations capturing similar or related issues. For each code, we generated an 'item', i.e. a specific phrase or sentence capturing the underlying concept. When multiple concepts existed under a single code, the team created multiple items for that code. We clustered codes addressing a broader methodological issue into a 'category' and classified items as relevant for reporting, relevant for selecting an anchor-based MID, or both.

RESULTS

We identified 136 eligible publications that provided 6 categories (MID definition, anchors, patient-reported outcome measures, generalizability and statistics) and 24 codes. These codes contained 34 items related to reporting MID studies, of which 29 were also related to selecting MIDs.

CONCLUSION

The systematic survey identified items related to reporting of anchor-based MID studies and selecting optimal MIDs. These provide a conceptual framework to inform the design of studies related to MIDs, and a basis for developing a reporting standard and a selection approach for MIDs.

A Systematic Review of Economic and Quality-of-Life Research in Carcinoid Syndrome

BACKGROUND

To date, the economic burden and patient-reported outcomes associated with carcinoid syndrome (CS) in patients with neuroendocrine tumor (NET) remain largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of economic and quality-of-life (QOL) studies related to the treatment of CS.

METHODS

Articles included in the review were extracted from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies had to be in English and published between 1 January 2000 and 2 July 2020. Other study eligibility criteria included patients with NET with CS receiving treatment for CS, study outcomes of cost or QOL, and clinical trials or population-based studies using claims or other secondary databases. The interventions included somatostatin analogs, telotristat ethyl, or other treatment for CS. To evaluate the quality and bias of the included studies, the 24-item CHEERS and 10-item Gill and Feinstein checklists were used. We report a narrative synthesis of the findings from the selected studies.

RESULTS

A total of 12 economic and 12 QOL studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for review. Patients with uncontrolled CS symptoms had 23-92% higher costs than those with controlled CS; mostly, ambulatory/outpatient services were the primary drivers of the costs. The use of telotristat ethyl may be cost effective if the societal willingness to pay is as high as $US150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in the USA. Of the 12 QOL papers, only three case-control studies assessed QOL at baseline and more than two follow-up time points. Seven studies evaluated QOL at two or more time points but lacked a control group, obscuring direct intervention effects on patients' well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed wide variations in the reviewed studies evaluating the economic burden and patient-reported outcomes, in terms of cost and QOL, of patients with CS. Although QOL is consistently impaired and costs are consistently increased by CS, the numbers of both cost and QOL studies among this patient population remain sparse, and many of the existing studies indicated an important need for quality improvement.

Light Enhanced Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT-I+Light) for Insomnia and Fatigue During Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Sleep problems are common during chemotherapy for breast cancer (BC). We evaluated whether combined brief cognitive behavioral and bright light therapy (CBT-I+Light) is superior to treatment as usual with relaxation audio (TAU+) for insomnia symptoms and sleep efficiency (primary outcomes).

METHODS

We randomized women receiving intravenous chemotherapy, stratified by tumor stage and insomnia severity index (ISI), to 6-weeks CBT-I+Light or TAU+. CBT-I+Light included one in-person session, one telephone call, seven emails, and 20 minutes bright light each morning. TAU+ comprised usual treatment and two emails with relaxation audio tracks. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, midpoint (week 3), post (week 6) and 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Women (N = 101) were randomly assigned to CBT-I+Light or TAU+. The CBT-I+Light group showed significantly greater improvement in insomnia symptoms than the TAU+ group (-5.06 vs -1.93, P = .009; between-group effect size [ES] = .69). At 3-month follow-up, both groups were lower than baseline but did not differ from each other (between-group ES = .18, P = .56). CBT-I+Light had higher patient-reported sleep efficiency than TAU+ immediately after the start of intervention (P = .05) and significantly greater improvement in fatigue (between-group ES = .59, P = .013) and daytime sleep-related impairment (between-group ES = .61, P = .009) than the TAU+ group.

CONCLUSION

CBT-I+Light had a clinically significant impact on insomnia and fatigue with moderate effect sizes. Results support offering cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia and bright light therapy during chemotherapy for breast cancer to help manage sleep and fatigue.

Triangulation of multiple meaningful change thresholds for patient-reported outcome scores

PURPOSE

The notion of what constitutes meaningful differences or changes in patient-reported outcome scores is represented by meaningful change thresholds (MCTs). Applying multiple methods to estimate MCTs inevitably results in a range of estimates; however, a single estimate or small range is sought in practice to enable consistent interpretation of scores. While current recommendations for triangulation are appropriate in principle, the vital step of moving from all estimates to a value or small range lacks clarity and is subjective in nature. This article aims to review current triangulation approaches and provide more robust recommendations than what is currently available.

METHODS

Current approaches to perform triangulation are described and discussed. Anchor-based estimates are focussed upon due to their recognition as the most valid and developed approach. Recommendations for triangulation are provided.

RESULTS

A correlation-weighted average of MCT estimates is recommended to triangulate multiple MCT estimates derived from a single study into a single value, where increased weighting is given to stronger anchor measures. The choice of method to triangulate estimates from several published studies is highly dependent on the availability of information within the publications. MCTs designed for between-group differences, within-group changes, and within-individual changes should be considered separately.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations within this article provide a reliable and transparent approach to triangulation when a single value is sought, based on meta-analytic approaches. This approach is preferable to a simple mean of estimates where all are weighted equally, or through 'eyeballing' plotted estimates which is unreliable. We encourage researchers to adopt these methods, but to remain aware of the limitations within each method and further nuances in study design that result in heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses with a range of plausible values are encouraged; however, the recommendations provide a suitable starting value for inferences. Unresolved issues in triangulation, requiring further exploration, are highlighted.

Minimal clinically important differences in SF-36 global score: Current value in orthopedic oncology

The SF-36 is widely used to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with musculoskeletal tumors. Instead of typical methods, calculating the SF-36 Global Score has recently become an increasingly common reporting approach. However, numerical changes lack clear clinical relevance. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is useful for interpreting changes in functional scores by defining the smallest change patients may perceive as clinically meaningful. The aim of this study is to determine the MCID of the SF-36 Global Score in orthopedic oncology patients, which has not been reported to date. Three-hundred ten patients who underwent surgery and completed two surveys during postoperative follow-up were reviewed. The two most common methods for calculating the SF-36 Global Score were used: (1) anchor-based methods and receiver operating characteristic analysis based on one-half of the SD of change score and standard error of measurement at baseline and; (2) distribution-based methods. Using anchor-based methods, the MCIDs of SF-36 Global Scores #1 and #2 were 2.7 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.85) and 2.5 (AUC = 0.79) for improvement, and -1.5 (AUC = 0.81) and -0.6 (AUC = 0.83) for deterioration, respectively. Using distribution-based methods, the MCIDs of SF-36 Global Scores #1 and #2 were 4.1 and 4.4 by half SD, and 4.1 and 4.5 by standard error of measurement, respectively. Our findings provide benchmark values, which can serve as a reference for future studies in musculoskeletal tumor patients using the SF-36 Global Score as a single measure for HRQoL.

Cancer worry after facial nonmelanoma skin cancer resection and reconstruction: A 1-year prospective study

OBJECTIVE

Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is one of the most diagnosed cancers in the world, with the number of new occurrences rising every year. Most patients with facial skin cancer experience cancer-related worry. Yet, little is known about their worry during the period after cancer treatment. This study aimed to assess the long-term change of cancer worry after surgical treatment in patients with NMSC.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for facial NMSC between December 2017 and March 2020 were asked to complete the FACE-Q Skin Cancer-Cancer Worry scale before (baseline), 3-month, and 1-year post-surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients completed the baseline and 3-month, and 99 (65.6%) the 1-year post-operative survey. A significant decrease in cancer worry score was seen between baseline and 3-month post-surgery (p < 0.001). No difference was found between the 3-month and 1-year post-surgery scores (p = 0.78). Less improvement in cancer worry was seen for patients who had one facial skin cancer in their medical history (p = 0.001) and patients who had a history of facial surgery (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Post-surgery patients still experience cancer worry. Therefore, targeted counseling might be of value when coping with cancer-related concerns. Patients with a history of facial NMSC and patients with a history of facial surgery might benefit from additional counseling.

Evaluating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the King's Sarcoidosis Questionnaire in a Multicenter Prospective Study

Rationale: Improvement of quality of life (QoL) in patients with sarcoidosis is an important goal of management. The King's Sarcoidosis Questionnaire (KSQ) and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) are instruments that have been used in sarcoidosis.Objectives: We defined the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as the within-patient clinically meaningful change threshold and determined the MCID of KSQ general health (KSQ GH), KSQ lung, and PGA using both anchor and distribution methods. The discriminatory properties of these MCIDs relative to other QoL instruments were then determined.Methods: Patients with sarcoidosis recruited from six centers in the United States were prospectively studied. Initially and at 6 months, patients completed a series of QoL questionnaires, including the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Short Form 36 (SF-36), Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS), Sarcoidosis Assessment Tool (SAT), KSQ, and PGA, and spirometry. For the anchor method, receiver operator characteristic curves were used to determine the MCID for improvement or worsening. The distribution method using half of the standard deviation was calculated for KSQ GH, KSQ lung, and PGA.Results: Of the 325 patients enrolled in the study, 271 completed the 6-month evaluation. At 6 months, approximately half of patients were worse and 30% were improved based on previously established MCID values for the SGRQ, SF-36, and FAS. There were no discordant cases. There were significant correlations between the KSQ GH, KSQ lung, and PGA and most parameters assessed. The best correlations were with the SGRQ, SF-36, and FAS, which have established MCID values. Using anchor analysis, we found that most of the domains of SGRQ and SF-36 were able to determine the significant MCIDs for all three variables. These MCIDs were similar to those determined by the half least square method. We propose an MCID of 8 for the KSQ GH, an MCID of 4 for the KSQ lung, and an MCID of 2 for the PGA because these values captured >90% of parameters studied. These MCID values discriminated between changes in other QoL instruments.Conclusions: The determination of MCID values for KSQ lung, KSQ GH, and PGA may prove useful for clinical practice as well as clinical trials.

Reliability, validity and important difference estimates for the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18)

Objective: To evaluate psychometric performance of the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) in advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: Cross-sectional, observational data from patients receiving treatment for ovarian cancer. Other measures included European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core (EORTC QLQ-C30) and associated ovarian cancer module (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. Internal consistency reliability, construct validity and anchor-based clinically important differences were assessed. Results: 897 patients were analyzed. Reliability was acceptable for all NFOSI-18 scores; construct validity was supported. Twelve anchors sufficiently correlated with NFOSI-18 scores and suggested clinically important differences: NFOSI-18 total score (5-7), disease-related symptoms - physical (3-4), disease-related symptoms - emotional (1), treatment side effects (2) and functional well-being (1-2). Conclusions: Results provide evidence of reliability and validity of NFOSI-18 scores. Generated CIDs will help improve interpretation of between-group treatment differences in clinical trials.

Methodological approach for determining the Minimal Important Difference and Minimal Important Change scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-HN43) exemplified by the Swallowing scale

Purpose

The aim of this study was to explore what methods should be used to determine the minimal important difference (MID) and minimal important change (MIC) in scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module, the EORTC QLQ-HN43.

Methods

In an international multi-centre study, patients with head and neck cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-HN43 before the onset of treatment (t1), three months after baseline (t2), and six months after baseline (t3). The methods explored for determining the MID were: (1) group comparisons based on performance status; (2) 0.5 and 0.3 standard deviation and standard error of the mean. The methods examined for the MIC were patients' subjective change ratings and receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves, predictive modelling, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean. The EORTC QLQ-HN43 Swallowing scale was used to investigate these methods.

Results

From 28 hospitals in 18 countries, 503 patients participated. Correlations with the performance status were |r|< 0.4 in 17 out of 19 scales; hence, performance status was regarded as an unsuitable anchor. The ROC approach yielded an implausible MIC and was also discarded. The remaining approaches worked well and delivered MID values ranging from 10 to 14; the MIC for deterioration ranged from 8 to 16 and the MIC for improvement from − 3 to − 14.

Conclusions

For determining MIDs of the remaining scales of the EORTC QLQ-HN43, we will omit comparisons of groups based on the Karnofsky Performance Score. Other external anchors are needed instead. Distribution-based methods worked well and will be applied as a starting strategy for analyses. For the calculation of MICs, subjective change ratings, predictive modelling, and standard-deviation based approaches are suitable methods whereas ROC analyses seem to be inappropriate.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-021-02939-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of Minimal Important Difference and Responder Definition in the EORTC QLQ-PAN26 Module for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Surgically Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Although the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-PAN26 is widely used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), its group-level minimal important difference (MID) and individual-level responder definition (RD) are not established; we calculated MID and RD using HRQoL data from the APACT trial in patients with surgically resected pancreatic cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

HRQoL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26 at baseline, during treatment, at end of treatment, and during follow-up. Distribution-based MIDs were estimated using 0.5 × baseline standard deviation (SD) and reliability-based (intraclass correlation) standard error of measurement (SEM). Anchor-based MIDs and RDs (anchor, QLQ-C30 overall health) were estimated using a linear mixed model.

RESULTS

Overall, 772 patients completed the baseline assessment. Distribution-based MIDs (0.5 × SD) for QLQ-PAN26 scales ranged from 12 to 13, except hepatic symptoms (≈8), pancreatic pain (≈10), and sexual dysfunction (≈17); those for stand-alone items ranged from 12 to 16. The SEM values were similar. Among scales/items sufficiently correlated (r > 0.30) with the anchor, MIDs ranged from 5 to 9. Within-patient QLQ-PAN26 RD estimates varied by direction (deterioration vs. improvement) and scale/item, but all values were lower than the true possible within-patient change (e.g. 16.7 points for a two-item scale) given a one-category change on the raw scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with distribution-based MIDs, anchor-based MIDs were twice as sensitive in detecting group-level changes in QLQ-PAN26 scales/items. For interpreting clinically meaningful change, RDs cannot be less than the true minimum of the scale. The group-level MID may help clinicians/researchers interpret HRQoL changes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01964430; Eudra CT 2013-003398-91.

Clinically meaningful changes on depressive symptom measures and patient-reported outcomes in patients with treatment-resistant depression

OBJECTIVE

To use the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale to estimate clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

METHODS

Pooled data were derived from two 4-week, randomized, active-controlled studies evaluating esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus oral antidepressant (OAD) or OAD plus placebo nasal spray (PBO) in adults with TRD (N = 565). CGI-S, MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9 scores were obtained at baseline and over 4 weeks of treatment. In this post hoc analysis, change scores on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9 that corresponded to a clinically meaningful (1-point) or clinically substantial (2-point) change on the CGI-S scale were identified.

RESULTS

Clinically meaningful changes in CGI-S scores after 28 days corresponded to 6-, 4-, and 3-point changes from baseline on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9, respectively. Similarly, a 2-point CGI-S score change (clinically substantial change) corresponded to a 12-, 8-, and 6-point change on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9, respectively. The proportion of patients showing substantial clinical improvement in the ESK plus OAD group versus the OAD plus PBO group after 28 days of treatment favored ESK plus OAD: 69.0% vs 55.3% (MADRS), 64.5% vs 48.9% (SDS), and 77.1% vs 64.7% (PHQ-9).

CONCLUSION

We provide a basis for identifying clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as assessed with commonly used outcome measures for depression to facilitate the translation of clinical trial results into clinical practice.