Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 1/2008

01-02-2008

Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold

Auteurs: Bruce Barrett, Roger Brown, Marlon Mundt

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2008

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Context

Evaluative health-related quality-of-life instruments used in clinical trials should be able to detect small but important changes in health status. Several approaches to minimal important difference (MID) and responsiveness have been developed.

Objectives

To compare anchor-based and distributional approaches to important difference and responsiveness for the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS), an illness-specific quality of life outcomes instrument.

Design

Participants with community-acquired colds self-reported daily using the WURSS-44. Distribution-based methods calculated standardized effect size (ES) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Anchor-based methods compared daily interval changes to global ratings of change, using: (1) standard MID methods based on correspondence to ratings of “a little better” or “somewhat better,” and (2) two-level multivariate regression models.

Participants

About 150 adults were monitored throughout their colds (1,681 sick days.): 88% were white, 69% were women, and 50% had completed college. The mean age was 35.5 years (SD = 14.7).

Results

WURSS scores increased 2.2 points from the first to second day, and then dropped by an average of 8.2 points per day from days 2 to 7. The SEM averaged 9.1 during these 7 days. Standard methods yielded a between day MID of 22 points. Regression models of MID projected 11.3-point daily changes. Dividing these estimates of small-but-important-difference by pooled SDs yielded coefficients of .425 for standard MID, .218 for regression model, .177 for SEM, and .157 for ES. These imply per-group sample sizes of 870 using ES, 616 for SEM, 302 for regression model, and 89 for standard MID, assuming α = .05, β = .20 (80% power), and two-tailed testing.

Conclusions

Distribution and anchor-based approaches provide somewhat different estimates of small but important difference, which in turn can have substantial impact on trial design.
vorige artikel Handling missing quality of life data in HIV clinical trials: what is practical?
volgende artikel A generalizability study of the Norwegian version of KINDLR in a sample of healthy adolescents
Literatuur
1.
McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Kirshner, B., & Guyatt, G. H. (1985). A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 38, 27–36.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Powell, C. V., & Kelly, A.-M. (2001). Determining the minimum clinically significant difference in visual analog pain score for children. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 37, 28–31.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Redelmeier, D. A., Guyatt, G. H., & Goldstein, R. S. (1996). Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: A comparison of two techniques. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 1215–1219.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Santanello, N. C., Zhang, J., Seidenberg, B., Reiss, T. F., & Barber, B. L. (1999). What are minimal important changes for asthma measures in a clinical trial? European Respiratory Journal, 14, 23–27.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Schunemann, H. J., Griffith, L., Jaeschke, R., Goldstein, R., Stubbing, D., & Guyatt, G. H. (2003). Evaluation of the minimal important difference for the feeling thermometer and the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire in patients with chronic airflow obstruction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 1170–1176.PubMedCrossRef
8.
van Stel, H. F., Maille, A. R., Colland, V. T., & Everaerd, W. (2003). Interpretation of change and longitudinal validity of the quality of life for respiratory illness questionnaire (QoLRIQ) in inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research, 12, 133–145.PubMedCrossRef
9.
van Walraven, C., Mahon, J. L., Moher, D., Bohm, C., & Laupacis, A. (1999). Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: Implications for sample-size calculation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 717–723.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J. N., & Wright, J. G. (2001). A taxonomy for responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 1204–1207.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Brant, R., Sutherland, L., & Hilsden, R. (1999). Examining the minimum important difference. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 2593–2603.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986). Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 39, 897–906.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Frost, M. H., Bonomi, A. E., Ferrans, C. E., Wong, G. Y., & Hays, R. D. (2002). Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 488–494.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002). Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 371–383.PubMed
15.
Norman, G. R., Stratford, P., & Regehr, G. (1997). Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50, 869–879.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Norman, G. R., Sridhar, F. G., Guyatt, G. H., & Walter, S. D. (2001). Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 39, 1039–1047.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Samsa, G. (2001). How should the minimum important difference for a health-related quality-of-life instrument be estimated? Medical Care, 39, 1037–1038.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Husted, J. A., Gladman, D. D., Cook, R. J., & Farewell, V. T. (1998). Responsiveness of health status instruments to changes in articular status and perceived health in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 25, 2146–2155.PubMed
19.
Guyatt, G. H., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171–178.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Juniper, E. F., & .Guyatt, G. H. (1991). Development and testing of a new measure of health status for clinical trials in rhinoconjunctivitis. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 21, 77–83.CrossRef
21.
Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 81–87.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Wells, G. A., Tugwell, P., Kraag, G. R., Baker, P. R., Groh, J., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient’s perspective. Journal of Rheumatology, 20, 557–560.PubMed
23.
Todd, K. H., & Funk, J. P. (1996). The minimum clinically important difference in physician-assigned visual analog pain scores. Academic Emergency Medicine, 3, 142–146.PubMed
24.
Bruynesteyn, K., van der Heijde, H. D., Boers, M., Lassere, M., Boonen, A., Edmonds, J, et al. (2001). 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. Journal of Rheumatology, 28, 904–910.PubMed
25.
Bombardier, C., Hayden, J., & Beaton, D. E. (2001). Minimal clinically important difference, low back pain: Outcomes measures. Journal of Rheumatology, 28, 431–438.PubMed
26.
Farrar, J. T., Portenoy, R. K., Berlin, J. A., Kinman, J. L., & Strom, B. L. (2000). Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain, 88, 287–294.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. L., Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27(Suppl), S178–S189.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Ward, M. M., Marx, A. S., & Barry, N. N. (2000). Identification of clinically important changes in health status using receiver operating characteristic curves. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 279–284.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (2002). Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 11, 1–7.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31.
Norman, G. R., Wyrwich, K. W., & Patrick, D. L. (2007). The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 815–822.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Wyrwich, K. W., Nienaber, N. A., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 37, 469–478.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Wyrwich, K. W. (2004). Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: Is there a connection? Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 14, 97–110.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Barrett, B., Locken, K., Maberry, R., Schwamman, J., Bobula, J., Brown, R., et al. (2002). The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey: Development of an instrument to measure the common cold. Journal of Family Practice, 51, 265–273.PubMed
35.
Barrett, B. P., Brown, R. L., Locken, K., Maberry, R., Bobula, J. A., & D’Alessio, D. (2002). Treatment of the common cold with unrefined echinacea: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 137, 939–946.PubMed
36.
Barrett, B., Brown, R., Mundt, M., Safdar, N., Dye, L., Maberry, R., et al. (2005). The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey is responsive, reliable, and valid. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 609–617.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Jackson, G. G., Dowling, H. F., & Muldoon, R. L. (1962). Present concepts of the common cold. American Journal of Public Health, 52, 940–945.PubMed
38.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., & Raczek, A. E. (1998). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31, 247–263.CrossRef
39.
Ware, J. E, Kosinski, M., Dewey, J. E., & Gandek, B. (2001) How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: A manual for users of the SF-8 health survey. Lincoln RI: Quality Metric.
40.
Barrett, B., Brown, R., Voland, R., Maberry, R., & Turner, R. (2006). Relations among questionnaire and laboratory measures of rhinovirus infection. European Respiratory Journal, 28, 358–363.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Yang, M., & Goldstein, H. (1996). Multilebel models for longitudinal data. In U. Engel & J. Tanner (Eds.), Analysis of change: Advanced techniques in panel data analysis (pp. 191–220). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
42.
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1990). A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales. Data from a randomized trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 11, 43–51.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Froberg, D. G., & Kane, R. L. (1989). Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 459–471.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. London: Academic Press.
46.
Gwaltney, J. M Jr., Hendley, J. O., & Patrie, J. T. (2003). Symptom severity patterns in experimental common colds and their usefulness in timing onset of illness in natural colds. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 36, 714–723.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.CrossRef
48.
Gleser, G. C., Cronbach, L. J., & Rajaratnam, N. (1965). Generalizability of scores influenced by multiple sources of variance. Psychometrika, 30, 395–418.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure “change” – Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80.CrossRef
50.
Deyo, R. A., & Inui, T. S. (1984). Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Health Services Research, 19, 277–289.
51.
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–347.CrossRef
52.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41, 582–592.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Norman, G. R. (2005). The relation between the minimally important difference and patient benefit. COPD, 2, 69–73.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A., Williams, J. I., Levy, L., & Naylor, C. D. (1996). Using a trade-off technique to assess patients’ treatment preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Medical Decision Making, 16, 262–282.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Naylor, C. D., & Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A. (1994). Can there be a more patient-centred approach to determining clinically important effect sizes for randomized treatment trials? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 787–795.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold
Auteurs
Bruce Barrett
Roger Brown
Marlon Mundt
Publicatiedatum
01-02-2008
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2008
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9277-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2008

Quality of Life Research 1/2008 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains most valued by urban isiXhosa-speaking people

OriginalPaper

Coping, meaning in life, and quality of life in congestive heart failure patients

OriginalPaper

Subjective quality of life in outpatients with schizophrenia in Hong Kong and Beijing: relationship to socio-demographic and clinical factors

OriginalPaper

Impact of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures on utility: results from a patient-based and a population-based sample

OriginalPaper

Analyzing growth and change: latent variable growth curve modeling with an application to clinical trials

OriginalPaper

The PedsQL™ Multidimensional Fatigue Scale in young adults: feasibility, reliability and validity in a University student population