Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 524-534 , May 2010

Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods

  • Caroline B. Terwee

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, The EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +31-20-4448187; fax: +31-20-4448181.
    • ,
  • Leo D. Roorda

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and Psychology, Jan van Breemen Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Joost Dekker

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Sita M. Bierma-Zeinstra

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • George Peat

      Affiliations

    • Arthritis Research Campaign National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele, UK
    • ,
  • Kelvin P. Jordan

      Affiliations

    • Arthritis Research Campaign National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele, UK
    • ,
  • Peter Croft

      Affiliations

    • Arthritis Research Campaign National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele, UK
    • ,
  • Henrica C.W. de Vet

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, The EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands

,Accepted 3 August 2009.

References 

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. 2006.
  2. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–109
  3. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70
  4. Wyrwich KW, Metz SM, Kroenke K, Tierney WM, Babu AN, Wolinsky FD. Triangulating patient and clinician perspectives on clinically important differences in health-related quality of life among patients with heart disease. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:2257–2274
  5. Leidy NK, Wyrwich KW. Bridging the gap: using triangulation methodology to estimate minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). COPD. 2005;2:157–165
  6. Veenhof C, Bijlsma JW, van den Ende CHM, van Dijk GM, Pisters MF, Dekker J. Psychometric evaluation of osteoarthritis questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:480–492
  7. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840
  8. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415
  9. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:897–906
  10. de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der RN, Knol DL, Beckerman H, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:131–142
  11. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. Oca Raton: CRC Press LLC; 1998;
  12. Davison AC, Hinkley DV. Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge University Press; 1997;
  13. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582–592
  14. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1999;37:469–478
  15. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:861–873
  16. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1033–1039
  17. Hageman WJ, Arrindell WA. Establishing clinically significant change: increment of precision and the distinction between individual and group level of analysis. Behav Res Ther. 1999;37:1169–1193
  18. Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94:149–158
  19. Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD. Psychometric evaluation of the impact of weight on quality of life-lite questionnaire (IWQOL-lite) in a community sample. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:157–171
  20. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1153–1160
  21. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:12–20
  22. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:82
  23. van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HC. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine. 2006;31:578–582
  24. Jordan K, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Croft P. A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:45–52
  25. McNair PJ, Prapavessis H, Collier J, Bassett S, Bryant A, Larmer P. The lower-limb tasks questionnaire: an assessment of validity, reliability, responsiveness, and minimal important differences. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:993–1001
  26. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K. Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:207–221
  27. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:869–879
  28. Wyrwich KW, Tardino VM. Understanding global transition assessments. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:995–1004
  29. Coeytaux RR, Kaufman JS, Chao R, Mann JD, DeVellis RF. Four methods of estimating the minimal important difference score were compared to establish a clinically significant change in Headache Impact Test. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:374–380
  30. de Groot V, Beckerman H, Uitdehaag BM, de Vet HC, Lankhorst GJ, Polman CH, et al. The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2006;129:2648–2659
  31. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:81–87
  32. Ostelo RW, de Vet HC, Knol DL, van den Brandt PA. 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:268–276
  33. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:283–291
  34. Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD. 2005;2:63–67
  35. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54
  36. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003;
  37. Tubach F, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. The variability in minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state values did not have an impact on treatment effect estimates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:725–728
  38. Turner D, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, et al. Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:374–379
  39. Peat G, Thomas E, Handy J, Wood L, Dziedzic K, Myers H, et al. The Knee Clinical Assessment Study-CAS(K). A prospective study of knee pain and knee osteoarthritis in the general population: baseline recruitment and retention at 18 months. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:30
  40. van der Waal JM, Bot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J. Determinants of the clinical course of musculoskeletal complaints in general practice: design of a cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:3
  41. Heintjes EM, Berger MY, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM. Knee disorders in primary care: design and patient selection of the HONEUR knee cohort. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6:45
  42. Veenhof C, Köke AJA, Dekker J, Oostendorp RAB, Bijlsma JWJ, van Tulder MW, et al. Effectiveness of behavioral graded activity in patients with osteoarthritis of hip and/or knee: a randomized clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:925–934
  43. Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, van der Eijken JW, et al. Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:36–42

PII: S0895-4356(09)00241-8

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.010

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 5 , Pages 524-534 , May 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution