Abstract
Background and Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Keywords
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyReferences
- Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.Lancet. 2014; 383: 267-276
- Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence.Lancet. 2009; 374: 86-89
- Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10: 407-415
- Writing a research article that is "fit for purpose": EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines.Evid Based Med. 2009; 14: 132-134
- CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials.Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115: 1063-1070
- Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study.BMJ. 2017; 357: j2490
- Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension.JAMA. 2013; 309: 814-822
- Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol.BMJ Open. 2015; 5: e007953
- Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: a systematic survey.J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 133: 61-71
- Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study.BMJ. 2020; 369: m1714
- PROQOLID.J Med Libr Assoc. 2016; 104: 91-92
- Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations.BMJ Open. 2017; 7: e015587
- Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society.BMJ. 2019; 364: k5267
- Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening.Qual Life Res. 2002; 11: 207-221
- A critical look at transition ratings.J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55: 900-908
- Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 37-45
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
Funding: This research was funded in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Knowledge Synthesis grant number DC0190SR.
Disclosure: ACL, TD, and GHG holds the copyright of the credibity tool to evaluate minimal important difference estimates. (Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A, Qasim A, Phillips M, Johnston BC, Devasenapathy N, Zeraatkar D, Bhatt M, Jin X, Brignardello-Petersen R, et al. 2020. Evaluating the credibility of anchor-based estimates of minimal important differences for patient-reported outcomes: Instrument development and reliability study. BMJ [Clinical research ed]. 369:m1714.)
Conflict of interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare no support from any organization for the submitted work. There are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Contributors statement: ACL, TD, BCJ, GN, SE, GHG conceived the study idea; ACL, TD, BCJ, AQ, MP, GG created the data extraction form for the MID inventory and led the development of the credibility instrument; TD, ACL, AQ, MP, ND, DZ, MB, XJ, RBP, OU, FF, SS, HPH, RWMV, HH, YR, RAS, and LL extracted data and assessed the credibility of MIDs in our inventory; ACL and TD wrote the first draft of the manuscript; ACL, TD, GG, AQ, MP, ND, DZ, RBP, OU, SS, HPH, RWMV, LL, BCJ, DLP, SE, TF, GN, HJS, MB, LT interpreted the data analysis and critically revised the manuscript. ACL and TD are the guarantors.
Data sharing statement: No additional data available.
Patient contribution: Patients were not involved in the development or conduct of the study.
Transparency statement: ACL and GHG affirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the recommendation being reported; that no important aspects of the recommendation have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the recommendation as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
Role of the sponsor: The funding organization did not influence the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; nor the decision to submit this manuscript for publication.
