Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-02-2014

Don’t middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences

Auteurs: Peter M. Fayers, Ron D. Hays

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2014

Abstract

Minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often estimated by selecting a clinical variable to serve as an anchor. Then, differences in the clinical anchor regarded as clinically meaningful or important can be used to estimate the corresponding value of the PRO. Although these MID values are sometimes estimated by regression techniques, we show that this is a biased procedure and should not be used; alternative methods are proposed.

volgende artikel Significance, truth and proof of p values: reminders about common misconceptions regarding null hypothesis significance testing

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

US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Guidance for industry. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071975.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2013.

McLeod, L. D., Coon, C. D., Martin, S., Fehnel, S. E., & Hays, R. D. (2011). Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 11, 163–169.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Kvam, A. K., Wisløff, F., & Fayers, P. M. (2010). Minimal important differences and response shift in health-related quality of life; A longitudinal study in patients with multiple myeloma. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 79.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Schwartz, N., & Sudman, S. (1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Norman, G. (2003). Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Quality of Life Research, 12, 239–249.PubMedCrossRef

Hays, R. D., Farivar, S. S., & Liu, H. (2005). Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2, 63–67.PubMedCrossRef

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109.PubMedCrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Suňer, I. J., Kokame, G. T., Yu, E., Ward, J., Dolan, C., & Bressler, N. M. (2009). Responsiveness of NEI VFQ-25 to changes in visual acuity in neovascular AMD: Validation studies from two phase 3 clinical trials. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 50, 3629–3635.CrossRef

11.

Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2013). Linking should replace regression when mapping from profile to preference-based measures. Value in Health (submitted).

12.

Galton, F. (1889). Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain, 15, 246–263.CrossRef

13.

Dorans, N. J. (2007). Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 85–94.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of a half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41, 582–592.PubMed

15.

Farivar, S. S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. D. (2004). Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 4, 515–523.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Don’t middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences
Auteurs: Peter M. Fayers
Ron D. Hays
Publicatiedatum: 01-02-2014
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0443-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2014

Effectiveness of psychoeducational support on quality of life in early-stage breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Depression and painful conditions: patterns of association with health status and health utility ratings in the general population

Psychometric analysis of the Swedish translation of the WHO well-being index

Erratum to: Understanding appraisal processes underlying the thentest: a mixed methods investigation

Innovations in e-health

Necessary and sufficient causes of participation post-stroke: practical and philosophical perspectives