Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: a diagnostic testing approach to interpretability.

OBJECTIVE The pursuit of interpretability of longitudinal measures of patient outcome has led to several methods for defining minimal amounts of change or final states that are important. Little is known about the best method. The purpose of this study was to directly compare methods using diagnostic utility to evaluate their usefulness. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Secondary analysis of longitudinal cohort data of persons attending physiotherapy for shoulder pain. Disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand outcome fielded at baseline and 3 months. Published methods were used to define positive response in scores: minimal change, final state, and combined change and final state. Proportions described as improved were compared (Kappa) and diagnostic testing techniques used to evaluate the strengths of each. RESULTS Only moderate agreement was found between methods (Kappa=0.47). Minimal clinically important differences were most sensitive but not specific. Final states were less sensitive, more specific, and most accurate. Combinations were slightly less specific. CONCLUSION A new approach allowed us to evaluate the relative merits and risks of different approaches to interpreting longitudinal patient outcomes. Our study points to a combination of change greater than error and/or a final score within general population norms as being the most clinically sensible with strong diagnostic accuracy.

[1]  D. Cook,et al.  Health status, quality of life, and the individual. , 1994, JAMA.

[2]  Ron D. Hays,et al.  The Concept of Clinically Meaningful Difference in Health-Related Quality-of-Life Research , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[3]  Ron D Hays,et al.  Evaluating the Statistical Significance of Health-Related Quality-Of-Life Change in Individual Patients , 2005, Evaluation & the health professions.

[4]  R. Fletcher,et al.  Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials , 1982 .

[5]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[6]  T. Mayer,et al.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference , 2010, Spine.

[7]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement , 2004, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[8]  C. Kelleher,et al.  How much is enough and who says so? , 2004, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[9]  A. Oza,et al.  Does palliative chemotherapy palliate? Evaluation of expectations, outcomes, and costs in women receiving chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  W M Tierney,et al.  Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. , 1999, Medical care.

[11]  D. Beaton,et al.  Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. , 2002, Current opinion in rheumatology.

[12]  G. Norman,et al.  Interpretation of Changes in Health-related Quality of Life: The Remarkable Universality of Half a Standard Deviation , 2003, Medical care.

[13]  P. Tugwell,et al.  MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop: low disease activity state in rheumatoid arthritis. , 2003, The Journal of rheumatology.

[14]  Sally C Stearns,et al.  Grading systems for cost-effectiveness studies: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts? , 2003, Medical care.

[15]  D. Redelmeier,et al.  Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements. An illustration in rheumatology. , 1993, Archives of internal medicine.

[16]  J. Kirwan,et al.  Minimum clinically important difference: the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow? , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[17]  D. A. Cioffi,et al.  The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Outcomes Instruments: Normative Values from the General Population , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[20]  M. Dougados,et al.  Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. , 2006, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[21]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  S. van der Linden,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference in radiological progression of joint damage over 1 year in rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary results of a validation study with clinical experts. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[23]  C. Terwee,et al.  Interpretation and validity of changes in scores on the Graves' ophthalmopathy quality of life questionnaire (GO‐QOL) after different treatments , 2001, Clinical endocrinology.

[24]  C. Naylor,et al.  Can there be a more patient-centred approach to determining clinically important effect sizes for randomized treatment trials? , 1994, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[25]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Quality of Life Instruments in the Evaluation of New Drugs , 1992, PharmacoEconomics.

[26]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. , 1994, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[27]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state , 2004, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[28]  N. Jacobson,et al.  Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application, and alternatives. , 1999, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[29]  A. Wein How much is enough and who says so? The case of the King's Health Questionnaire and overactive bladder. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[30]  D. Felson,et al.  Deriving an operational definition of low disease activity state in rheumatoid arthritis. , 2003, The Journal of rheumatology.

[31]  F. Tubach,et al.  The variability in minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state values did not have an impact on treatment effect estimates. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[32]  D. Fergusson,et al.  Systematic Review of Measures of Clinical Significance Employed in Randomized Controlled Trials of Drugs for Dementia , 2009, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[33]  P. Tugwell,et al.  MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. , 2003, The Journal of rheumatology.

[34]  R. Epstein,et al.  Interpretation of quality of life changes , 1993, Quality of Life Research.

[35]  J. Wright,et al.  The minimal important difference: who's to say what is important? , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[36]  J. Katz,et al.  Measuring relevant change: an emerging challenge in rheumatologic clinical trials. , 1995, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[37]  R. Hays,et al.  Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes , 2006, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[38]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head) , 1996 .

[39]  K. Wyrwich Minimal Important Difference Thresholds and the Standard Error of Measurement: Is There a Connection? , 2004, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[40]  S. Hogg-Johnson,et al.  Three methods for minimally important difference: no relationship was found with the net proportion of patients improving. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[41]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials , 1998, BMJ.

[42]  D. Beaton,et al.  Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. , 2003, Medical care.

[43]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. , 1998, Physical therapy.

[44]  S. Bauer,et al.  Clinical Significance Methods: A Comparison of Statistical Techniques , 2004, Journal of personality assessment.

[45]  P. V. van Riel,et al.  The Disease Activity Score and the EULAR response criteria. , 2005, Clinical and experimental rheumatology.

[46]  E. Wise Methods for Analyzing Psychotherapy Outcomes: A Review of Clinical Significance, Reliable Change, and Recommendations for Future Directions , 2004, Journal of personality assessment.

[47]  P. Stratford,et al.  Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. , 1998, Physical therapy.

[48]  Aileen M. Davis,et al.  The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure: What do we know about it now? , 2001 .

[49]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. , 2001, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[51]  B Shea,et al.  Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[52]  P. Stratford,et al.  Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[53]  Philippe Ravaud,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues. , 2005, The Journal of rheumatology.

[54]  M. Liang,et al.  The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. , 2003, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[55]  N. Jacobson,et al.  Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. , 1991, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[56]  P Tugwell,et al.  Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. , 1993, The Journal of rheumatology.

[57]  S. Pocock A perspective on the role of quality-of-life assessment in clinical trials. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[58]  D. Cella,et al.  Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[59]  W. Tierney,et al.  Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.