Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change

go back to reference Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415.CrossRefPubMed Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Ferreira, M. L., Herbert, R. D., Ferreira, P. H., Latimer, J., Ostelo, R. W., Nascimento, D. P., et al. (2012). A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(3), 253–261.CrossRefPubMed Ferreira, M. L., Herbert, R. D., Ferreira, P. H., Latimer, J., Ostelo, R. W., Nascimento, D. P., et al. (2012). A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(3), 253–261.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Swartz, R. J., Schwartz, C., Basch, E., Cai, L., Fairclough, D. L., McLeod, L., et al. (2011). The king’s foot of patient-reported outcomes: Current practices and new developments for the measurement of change. Quality of Life Research, 20(8), 1159–1167.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Swartz, R. J., Schwartz, C., Basch, E., Cai, L., Fairclough, D. L., McLeod, L., et al. (2011). The king’s foot of patient-reported outcomes: Current practices and new developments for the measurement of change. Quality of Life Research, 20(8), 1159–1167.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., Dekker, J., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M., Peat, G., Jordan, K. P., et al. (2010). Mind the MIC: Large variation among populations and methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(5), 524–534.CrossRefPubMed Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., Dekker, J., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M., Peat, G., Jordan, K. P., et al. (2010). Mind the MIC: Large variation among populations and methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(5), 524–534.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference 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(2), 102–109.CrossRefPubMed 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(2), 102–109.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W, Jr, & Schuler, T. C. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. Spine Journal, 7(5), 541–546.CrossRefPubMed Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W, Jr, & Schuler, T. C. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. Spine Journal, 7(5), 541–546.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Beaton, D., Boers, M., Bombardier, C., Felson, D. T., et al. (2007). Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. Journal of Rheumatology, 34(5), 1188–1193.PubMedCentralPubMed Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Beaton, D., Boers, M., Bombardier, C., Felson, D. T., et al. (2007). Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. Journal of Rheumatology, 34(5), 1188–1193.PubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(5), 395–407.CrossRefPubMed Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(5), 395–407.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Wells, G., Beaton, D., Shea, B., Boers, M., Simon, L., Strand, V., et al. (2001). Minimal clinically important differences: Review of methods. Journal of Rheumatology, 28(2), 406–412.PubMed Wells, G., Beaton, D., Shea, B., Boers, M., Simon, L., Strand, V., et al. (2001). Minimal clinically important differences: Review of methods. Journal of Rheumatology, 28(2), 406–412.PubMed

go back to reference Curtis, J. R., Shan, Y., Harrold, L., Zhang, J., Greenberg, J. D., & Reed, G. W. (2013). Patient perspectives on achieving treat-to-target goals: A critical examination of patient-reported outcomes. Arthritis Care & Research, 65(10), 1707–1712. Curtis, J. R., Shan, Y., Harrold, L., Zhang, J., Greenberg, J. D., & Reed, G. W. (2013). Patient perspectives on achieving treat-to-target goals: A critical examination of patient-reported outcomes. Arthritis Care & Research, 65(10), 1707–1712.

go back to reference Studenic, P., Radner, H., Smolen, J. S., & Aletaha, D. (2012). Discrepancies between patients and physicians in their perceptions of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 64(9), 2814–2823.CrossRefPubMed Studenic, P., Radner, H., Smolen, J. S., & Aletaha, D. (2012). Discrepancies between patients and physicians in their perceptions of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 64(9), 2814–2823.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Khan, N. A., Spencer, H. J., Abda, E., Aggarwal, A., Alten, R., Ancuta, C., et al. (2012). Determinants of discordance in patients’ and physicians’ rating of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Arthritis Care & Research, 64(2), 206–214.CrossRef Khan, N. A., Spencer, H. J., Abda, E., Aggarwal, A., Alten, R., Ancuta, C., et al. (2012). Determinants of discordance in patients’ and physicians’ rating of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Arthritis Care & Research, 64(2), 206–214.CrossRef

go back to reference van Hulst, L. T., Kievit, W., van Bommel, R., van Riel, P. L., & Fraenkel, L. (2011). Rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists approach the decision to escalate care differently: Results of a maximum difference scaling experiment. Arthritis Care & Research, 63(10), 1407–1414.CrossRef van Hulst, L. T., Kievit, W., van Bommel, R., van Riel, P. L., & Fraenkel, L. (2011). Rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists approach the decision to escalate care differently: Results of a maximum difference scaling experiment. Arthritis Care & Research, 63(10), 1407–1414.CrossRef

go back to reference Sanderson, T., Morris, M., Calnan, M., Richards, P., & Hewlett, S. (2010). What outcomes from pharmacologic treatments are important to people with rheumatoid arthritis? Creating the basis of a patient core set. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken), 62(5), 640–646.CrossRef Sanderson, T., Morris, M., Calnan, M., Richards, P., & Hewlett, S. (2010). What outcomes from pharmacologic treatments are important to people with rheumatoid arthritis? Creating the basis of a patient core set. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken), 62(5), 640–646.CrossRef

go back to reference Kievit, W., van Hulst, L., van Riel, P., & Fraenkel, L. (2010). Factors that influence rheumatologists’ decisions to escalate care in rheumatoid arthritis: Results from a choice-based conjoint analysis. Arthritis Care & Research, 62(6), 842–847.CrossRef Kievit, W., van Hulst, L., van Riel, P., & Fraenkel, L. (2010). Factors that influence rheumatologists’ decisions to escalate care in rheumatoid arthritis: Results from a choice-based conjoint analysis. Arthritis Care & Research, 62(6), 842–847.CrossRef

go back to reference Sanderson, T., Morris, M., Calnan, M., Richards, P., & Hewlett, S. (2010). Patient perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: The rheumatoid arthritis patient priorities for pharmacologic interventions outcomes. Arthritis Care & Research, 62(5), 647–656.CrossRef Sanderson, T., Morris, M., Calnan, M., Richards, P., & Hewlett, S. (2010). Patient perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: The rheumatoid arthritis patient priorities for pharmacologic interventions outcomes. Arthritis Care & Research, 62(5), 647–656.CrossRef

go back to reference Chilton, F., & Collett, R. A. (2008). Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskeletal Care, 6(1), 1–14.CrossRefPubMed Chilton, F., & Collett, R. A. (2008). Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskeletal Care, 6(1), 1–14.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Wolfe, F., & Michaud, K. (2007). Resistance of rheumatoid arthritis patients to changing therapy: Discordance between disease activity and patients’ treatment choices. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 56(7), 2135–2142.CrossRefPubMed Wolfe, F., & Michaud, K. (2007). Resistance of rheumatoid arthritis patients to changing therapy: Discordance between disease activity and patients’ treatment choices. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 56(7), 2135–2142.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Leeb, B. F., Sautner, J., Leeb, B. A., Fassl, C., & Rintelen, B. (2006). Lack of agreement between patients’ and physicians’ perspectives of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity changes. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, 35(6), 441–446.CrossRefPubMed Leeb, B. F., Sautner, J., Leeb, B. A., Fassl, C., & Rintelen, B. (2006). Lack of agreement between patients’ and physicians’ perspectives of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity changes. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, 35(6), 441–446.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Leeb, B. F., Andel, I., Leder, S., Leeb, B. A., & Rintelen, B. (2005). The patient’s perspective and rheumatoid arthritis disease activity indexes. Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 44(3), 360–365.CrossRef Leeb, B. F., Andel, I., Leder, S., Leeb, B. A., & Rintelen, B. (2005). The patient’s perspective and rheumatoid arthritis disease activity indexes. Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 44(3), 360–365.CrossRef

go back to reference Nicolau, G., Yogui, M. M., Vallochi, T. L., Gianini, R. J., Laurindo, I. M., & Novaes, G. S. (2004). Sources of discrepancy in patient and physician global assessments of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Journal of Rheumatology, 31(7), 1293–1296.PubMed Nicolau, G., Yogui, M. M., Vallochi, T. L., Gianini, R. J., Laurindo, I. M., & Novaes, G. S. (2004). Sources of discrepancy in patient and physician global assessments of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Journal of Rheumatology, 31(7), 1293–1296.PubMed

go back to reference Beaton, D. E., Boers, M., & Wells, G. A. (2002). Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): A literature review and directions for future research. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 14(2), 109–114.CrossRefPubMed Beaton, D. E., Boers, M., & Wells, G. A. (2002). Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): A literature review and directions for future research. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 14(2), 109–114.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Wyrwich, K. W., Norquist, J. M., Lenderking, W. R., Acaster, S., & Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life, R. (2013). Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 22(3), 475–483.CrossRefPubMed Wyrwich, K. W., Norquist, J. M., Lenderking, W. R., Acaster, S., & Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life, R. (2013). Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 22(3), 475–483.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Wells, G., Anderson, J., Beaton, D., Bellamy, N., Boers, M., Bombardier, C., et al. (2001). Minimal clinically important difference module: Summary, recommendations, and research agenda. Journal of Rheumatology, 28(2), 452–454.PubMed Wells, G., Anderson, J., Beaton, D., Bellamy, N., Boers, M., Bombardier, C., et al. (2001). Minimal clinically important difference module: Summary, recommendations, and research agenda. Journal of Rheumatology, 28(2), 452–454.PubMed

go back to reference DREAM. (2013). Retrieved 2013 May 3, from www.dreamregistry.nl. DREAM. (2013). Retrieved 2013 May 3, from www.​dreamregistry.​nl.

go back to reference Smolen, J. S., Landewe, R., Breedveld, F. C., Buch, M., Burmester, G., Dougados, M., et al. (2014). EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 73(3), 492–509.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Smolen, J. S., Landewe, R., Breedveld, F. C., Buch, M., Burmester, G., Dougados, M., et al. (2014). EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 73(3), 492–509.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Treadwell, J. R., & Lenert, L. A. (1999). Health values and prospect theory. Medical Decision Making, 19(3), 344–352.CrossRefPubMed Treadwell, J. R., & Lenert, L. A. (1999). Health values and prospect theory. Medical Decision Making, 19(3), 344–352.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Cella, D., Hahn, E. A., & Dineen, K. (2002). Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 207–221.CrossRefPubMed Cella, D., Hahn, E. A., & Dineen, K. (2002). Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 207–221.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Rouquette, A., Blanchin, M., Sebille, V., Guillemin, F., Cote, S. M., Falissard, B., et al. (2014). The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 433–440.CrossRefPubMed Rouquette, A., Blanchin, M., Sebille, V., Guillemin, F., Cote, S. M., Falissard, B., et al. (2014). The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 433–440.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Pope, J. E., Khanna, D., Norrie, D., & Ouimet, J. M. (2009). The minimally important difference for the health assessment questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis clinical practice is smaller than in randomized controlled trials. Journal of Rheumatology, 36(2), 254–259.CrossRefPubMed Pope, J. E., Khanna, D., Norrie, D., & Ouimet, J. M. (2009). The minimally important difference for the health assessment questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis clinical practice is smaller than in randomized controlled trials. Journal of Rheumatology, 36(2), 254–259.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Perrot, S., & Bertin, P. (2013). “Feeling better” or “feeling well” in usual care of hip and knee osteoarthritis pain: Determination of cutoff points for patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) at rest and on movement in a national multicenter cohort study of 2414 patients with painful osteoarthritis. Pain, 154(2), 248–256.CrossRefPubMed Perrot, S., & Bertin, P. (2013). “Feeling better” or “feeling well” in usual care of hip and knee osteoarthritis pain: Determination of cutoff points for patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) at rest and on movement in a national multicenter cohort study of 2414 patients with painful osteoarthritis. Pain, 154(2), 248–256.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Anderson, J., Caplan, L., Yazdany, J., Robbins, M. L., Neogi, T., Michaud, K., et al. (2012). Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures: American College of Rheumatology recommendations for use in clinical practice. Arthritis Care & Research, 64(5), 640–647.CrossRef Anderson, J., Caplan, L., Yazdany, J., Robbins, M. L., Neogi, T., Michaud, K., et al. (2012). Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures: American College of Rheumatology recommendations for use in clinical practice. Arthritis Care & Research, 64(5), 640–647.CrossRef

go back to reference DAS28.nl. (2013). Retrieved 2013 May 3, from http://www.das28.nl. DAS28.nl. (2013). Retrieved 2013 May 3, from http://​www.​das28.​nl.

go back to reference Anderson, J. K., Zimmerman, L., Caplan, L., & Michaud, K. (2011). Measures of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity: Patient (PtGA) and Provider (PrGA) Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Disease Activity Score (DAS) and Disease Activity Score with 28-Joint Counts (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Activity Score (PAS) and Patient Activity Score-II (PASII), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID), Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), Chronic Arthritis Systemic Index (CASI), Patient-Based Disease Activity Score With ESR (PDAS1) and Patient-Based Disease Activity Score without ESR (PDAS2), and Mean Overall Index for Rheumatoid Arthritis (MOI-RA). Arthritis Care & Research, 63(Suppl 11), S14–S36.CrossRef Anderson, J. K., Zimmerman, L., Caplan, L., & Michaud, K. (2011). Measures of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity: Patient (PtGA) and Provider (PrGA) Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Disease Activity Score (DAS) and Disease Activity Score with 28-Joint Counts (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Activity Score (PAS) and Patient Activity Score-II (PASII), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID), Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), Chronic Arthritis Systemic Index (CASI), Patient-Based Disease Activity Score With ESR (PDAS1) and Patient-Based Disease Activity Score without ESR (PDAS2), and Mean Overall Index for Rheumatoid Arthritis (MOI-RA). Arthritis Care & Research, 63(Suppl 11), S14–S36.CrossRef

go back to reference Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals Outcomes Measures Task, F. (2003). Patient outcomes in rheumatology. A review of measures. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 49(5 Suppl), S1–S232. Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals Outcomes Measures Task, F. (2003). Patient outcomes in rheumatology. A review of measures. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 49(5 Suppl), S1–S232.

go back to reference de Vet, H. C., Terluin, B., Knol, D. L., Roorda, L. D., Mokkink, L. B., Ostelo, R. W., et al. (2010). Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied “minimally important change” values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(1), 37–45.CrossRefPubMed de Vet, H. C., Terluin, B., Knol, D. L., Roorda, L. D., Mokkink, L. B., Ostelo, R. W., et al. (2010). Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied “minimally important change” values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(1), 37–45.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Aletaha, D., Funovits, J., Ward, M. M., Smolen, J. S., & Kvien, T. K. (2009). Perception of improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis varies with disease activity levels at baseline. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 61(3), 313–320.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Aletaha, D., Funovits, J., Ward, M. M., Smolen, J. S., & Kvien, T. K. (2009). Perception of improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis varies with disease activity levels at baseline. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 61(3), 313–320.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Ward, M. M., Guthrie, L. C., & Alba, M. (2014). Dependence of the minimal clinically important improvement on the baseline value is a consequence of floor and ceiling effects and not different expectations by patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(6), 689–696.CrossRefPubMed Ward, M. M., Guthrie, L. C., & Alba, M. (2014). Dependence of the minimal clinically important improvement on the baseline value is a consequence of floor and ceiling effects and not different expectations by patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(6), 689–696.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Browne, J. P., van der Meulen, J. H., Lewsey, J. D., Lamping, D. L., & Black, N. (2010). Mathematical coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important difference values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(8), 865–874.CrossRefPubMed Browne, J. P., van der Meulen, J. H., Lewsey, J. D., Lamping, D. L., & Black, N. (2010). Mathematical coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important difference values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(8), 865–874.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Wang, Y. C., Hart, D. L., Stratford, P. W., & Mioduski, J. E. (2011). Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Physical Therapy, 91(5), 675–688.CrossRefPubMed Wang, Y. C., Hart, D. L., Stratford, P. W., & Mioduski, J. E. (2011). Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Physical Therapy, 91(5), 675–688.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Terluin, B. (2012). Mathematical coupling does not account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important change values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(4), 355–357.CrossRefPubMed Terluin, B. (2012). Mathematical coupling does not account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important change values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(4), 355–357.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Maxwell, J. L., Felson, D. T., Niu, J., Wise, B., Nevitt, M. C., Singh, J. A., et al. (2014). Does clinically important change in function after knee replacement guarantee good absolute function? The multicenter osteoarthritis study. Journal of Rheumatology, 41(1), 60–64.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Maxwell, J. L., Felson, D. T., Niu, J., Wise, B., Nevitt, M. C., Singh, J. A., et al. (2014). Does clinically important change in function after knee replacement guarantee good absolute function? The multicenter osteoarthritis study. Journal of Rheumatology, 41(1), 60–64.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference van Gestel, A. M., Haagsma, C. J., & van Riel, P. L. (1998). Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 41(10), 1845–1850.CrossRefPubMed van Gestel, A. M., Haagsma, C. J., & van Riel, P. L. (1998). Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 41(10), 1845–1850.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Ward, M. M., Guthrie, L. C., & Alba, M. I. (2014). Clinically important changes in individual and composite measures of rheumatoid arthritis activity: Thresholds applicable in clinical trials. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-205079. Ward, M. M., Guthrie, L. C., & Alba, M. I. (2014). Clinically important changes in individual and composite measures of rheumatoid arthritis activity: Thresholds applicable in clinical trials. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. doi:10.​1136/​annrheumdis-2013-205079.

go back to reference Dougados, M., Brault, Y., Logeart, I., van der Heijde, D., Gossec, L., & Kvien, T. (2012). Defining cut-off values for disease activity states and improvement scores for patient-reported outcomes: The example of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID). Arthritis Research & Therapy, 14(3), R129.CrossRef Dougados, M., Brault, Y., Logeart, I., van der Heijde, D., Gossec, L., & Kvien, T. (2012). Defining cut-off values for disease activity states and improvement scores for patient-reported outcomes: The example of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID). Arthritis Research & Therapy, 14(3), R129.CrossRef

go back to reference Kvamme, M. K., Kristiansen, I. S., Lie, E., & Kvien, T. K. (2010). Identification of cutpoints for acceptable health status and important improvement in patient-reported outcomes, in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Journal of Rheumatology, 37(1), 26–31.CrossRefPubMed Kvamme, M. K., Kristiansen, I. S., Lie, E., & Kvien, T. K. (2010). Identification of cutpoints for acceptable health status and important improvement in patient-reported outcomes, in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Journal of Rheumatology, 37(1), 26–31.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Cheung, Y. T., Foo, Y. L., Shwe, M., Tan, Y. P., Fan, G., Yong, W. S., et al. (2014). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the functional assessment of cancer therapy: Cognitive function (FACT-Cog) in breast cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(7), 811–820. Cheung, Y. T., Foo, Y. L., Shwe, M., Tan, Y. P., Fan, G., Yong, W. S., et al. (2014). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the functional assessment of cancer therapy: Cognitive function (FACT-Cog) in breast cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(7), 811–820.

go back to reference de Kleijn, W. P. E., De Vries, J., Wijnen, P., & Drent, M. (2011). Minimal (clinically) important differences for the Fatigue Assessment Scale in sarcoidosis. Respiratory Medicine, 105(9), 1388–1395.CrossRefPubMed de Kleijn, W. P. E., De Vries, J., Wijnen, P., & Drent, M. (2011). Minimal (clinically) important differences for the Fatigue Assessment Scale in sarcoidosis. Respiratory Medicine, 105(9), 1388–1395.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Heidemann, C. H., Godballe, C., Kjeldsen, A. D., Johansen, E. C. J., Faber, C. E., & Lauridsen, H. H. (2013). The Otitis Media-6 questionnaire: Psychometric properties with emphasis on factor structure and interpretability. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 201.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Heidemann, C. H., Godballe, C., Kjeldsen, A. D., Johansen, E. C. J., Faber, C. E., & Lauridsen, H. H. (2013). The Otitis Media-6 questionnaire: Psychometric properties with emphasis on factor structure and interpretability. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 201.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Holland, A. E., Hill, C. J., Rasekaba, T., Lee, A., Naughton, M. T., & McDonald, C. F. (2010). Updating the minimal important difference for six-minute walk distance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(2), 221–225.CrossRefPubMed Holland, A. E., Hill, C. J., Rasekaba, T., Lee, A., Naughton, M. T., & McDonald, C. F. (2010). Updating the minimal important difference for six-minute walk distance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(2), 221–225.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Johnsen, L. G., Hellum, C., Nygaard, O. P., Storheim, K., Brox, J. I., Rossvoll, I., et al. (2013). Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14, 148.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Johnsen, L. G., Hellum, C., Nygaard, O. P., Storheim, K., Brox, J. I., Rossvoll, I., et al. (2013). Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14, 148.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Jorritsma, W., Dijkstra, P. U., de Vries, G. E., Geertzen, J. H. B., & Reneman, M. F. (2012). Detecting relevant changes and responsiveness of Neck Pain and Disability Scale and Neck Disability Index. European Spine Journal, 21(12), 2550–2557.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Jorritsma, W., Dijkstra, P. U., de Vries, G. E., Geertzen, J. H. B., & Reneman, M. F. (2012). Detecting relevant changes and responsiveness of Neck Pain and Disability Scale and Neck Disability Index. European Spine Journal, 21(12), 2550–2557.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Kon, S. S., Dilaver, D., Mittal, M., Nolan, C. M., Clark, A. L., Canavan, J. L., et al. (2013). The Clinical COPD Questionnaire: Response to pulmonary rehabilitation and minimal clinically important difference. Thorax. Kon, S. S., Dilaver, D., Mittal, M., Nolan, C. M., Clark, A. L., Canavan, J. L., et al. (2013). The Clinical COPD Questionnaire: Response to pulmonary rehabilitation and minimal clinically important difference. Thorax.

go back to reference Murphy, M. A., Willen, C., & Sunnerhagen, K. S. (2013). Responsiveness of upper extremity kinematic measures and clinical improvement during the first three months after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 27(9), 844–853.CrossRef Murphy, M. A., Willen, C., & Sunnerhagen, K. S. (2013). Responsiveness of upper extremity kinematic measures and clinical improvement during the first three months after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 27(9), 844–853.CrossRef

go back to reference Packham, J. C., Jordan, K. P., Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., & Healey, E. L. (2012). Evaluation of Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life questionnaire: Responsiveness of a new patient-reported outcome measure. Rheumatology, 51(4), 707–714.CrossRefPubMed Packham, J. C., Jordan, K. P., Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., & Healey, E. L. (2012). Evaluation of Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life questionnaire: Responsiveness of a new patient-reported outcome measure. Rheumatology, 51(4), 707–714.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Smelt, A. F. H., Assendelft, W. J. J., Terwee, C. B., Ferrari, M. D., & Blom, J. W. (2014). What is a clinically relevant change on the HIT-6 questionnaire? An estimation in a primary-care population of migraine patients. Cephalalgia, 34(1), 29–36.CrossRefPubMed Smelt, A. F. H., Assendelft, W. J. J., Terwee, C. B., Ferrari, M. D., & Blom, J. W. (2014). What is a clinically relevant change on the HIT-6 questionnaire? An estimation in a primary-care population of migraine patients. Cephalalgia, 34(1), 29–36.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Grovle, L., Haugen, A. J., Hasvik, E., Natvig, B., Brox, J. I., & Grotle, M. (2014). Patients’ ratings of global perceived change during 2 years were strongly influenced by the current health status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(5), 508–515.CrossRefPubMed Grovle, L., Haugen, A. J., Hasvik, E., Natvig, B., Brox, J. I., & Grotle, M. (2014). Patients’ ratings of global perceived change during 2 years were strongly influenced by the current health status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(5), 508–515.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Guyatt, G. H., Norman, G. R., Juniper, E. F., & Griffith, L. E. (2002). A critical look at transition ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(9), 900–908.CrossRefPubMed Guyatt, G. H., Norman, G. R., Juniper, E. F., & Griffith, L. E. (2002). A critical look at transition ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(9), 900–908.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Schmitt, J., & Di Fabio, R. P. (2005). The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(12), 2270–2276.CrossRefPubMed Schmitt, J., & Di Fabio, R. P. (2005). The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(12), 2270–2276.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Kamper, S. J., Ostelo, R. W., Knol, D. L., Maher, C. G., de Vet, H. C., & Hancock, M. J. (2010). Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 760–766.CrossRefPubMed Kamper, S. J., Ostelo, R. W., Knol, D. L., Maher, C. G., de Vet, H. C., & Hancock, M. J. (2010). Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 760–766.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Tubach, F., Dougados, M., Falissard, B., Baron, G., Logeart, I., & Ravaud, P. (2006). Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 55(4), 526–530.CrossRefPubMed Tubach, F., Dougados, M., Falissard, B., Baron, G., Logeart, I., & Ravaud, P. (2006). Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 55(4), 526–530.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Barrett, B., Brown, D., Mundt, M., & Brown, R. (2005). Sufficiently important difference: Expanding the framework of clinical significance. Medical Decision Making, 25(3), 250–261.CrossRefPubMed Barrett, B., Brown, D., Mundt, M., & Brown, R. (2005). Sufficiently important difference: Expanding the framework of clinical significance. Medical Decision Making, 25(3), 250–261.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Salt, E., & Peden, A. (2011). The complexity of the treatment: The decision-making process among women with rheumatoid arthritis. Qualitative Health Research, 21(2), 214–222.CrossRefPubMed Salt, E., & Peden, A. (2011). The complexity of the treatment: The decision-making process among women with rheumatoid arthritis. Qualitative Health Research, 21(2), 214–222.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference de Achaval, S., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2010). Treatment adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 5(3), 313–326.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed de Achaval, S., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2010). Treatment adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 5(3), 313–326.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Barton, J. L. (2009). Patient preferences and satisfaction in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic therapy. Patient Preference and Adherence, 3, 335–344.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Barton, J. L. (2009). Patient preferences and satisfaction in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic therapy. Patient Preference and Adherence, 3, 335–344.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Sinclair, V. G., & Blackburn, D. S. (2008). Adaptive coping with rheumatoid arthritis: The transforming nature of response shift. Chronic Illness, 4(3), 219–230.CrossRefPubMed Sinclair, V. G., & Blackburn, D. S. (2008). Adaptive coping with rheumatoid arthritis: The transforming nature of response shift. Chronic Illness, 4(3), 219–230.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Martin, R. W., Head, A. J., Rene, J., Swartz, T. J., Fiechtner, J. J., McIntosh, B. A., et al. (2008). Patient decision-making related to antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: The importance of patient trust of physician. Journal of Rheumatology, 35(4), 618–624.PubMed Martin, R. W., Head, A. J., Rene, J., Swartz, T. J., Fiechtner, J. J., McIntosh, B. A., et al. (2008). Patient decision-making related to antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: The importance of patient trust of physician. Journal of Rheumatology, 35(4), 618–624.PubMed

go back to reference Fraenkel, L., Bogardus, S. T., Concato, J., Felson, D. T., & Wittink, D. R. (2004). Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63(11), 1372–1378.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Fraenkel, L., Bogardus, S. T., Concato, J., Felson, D. T., & Wittink, D. R. (2004). Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63(11), 1372–1378.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

go back to reference Fraenkel, L., Bogardus, S., Concato, J., & Felson, D. (2003). Risk communication in rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(3), 443–448.PubMed Fraenkel, L., Bogardus, S., Concato, J., & Felson, D. (2003). Risk communication in rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(3), 443–448.PubMed

go back to reference Ferreira, M. L., Ferreira, P. H., Herbert, R. D., & Latimer, J. (2009). People with low back pain typically need to feel ‘much better’ to consider intervention worthwhile: An observational study. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 55(2), 123–127.CrossRefPubMed Ferreira, M. L., Ferreira, P. H., Herbert, R. D., & Latimer, J. (2009). People with low back pain typically need to feel ‘much better’ to consider intervention worthwhile: An observational study. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 55(2), 123–127.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Barrett, B., Brown, R., Mundt, M., Dye, L., Alt, J., Safdar, N., et al. (2005). Using benefit harm tradeoffs to estimate sufficiently important difference: The case of the common cold. Medical Decision Making, 25(1), 47–55.CrossRefPubMed Barrett, B., Brown, R., Mundt, M., Dye, L., Alt, J., Safdar, N., et al. (2005). Using benefit harm tradeoffs to estimate sufficiently important difference: The case of the common cold. Medical Decision Making, 25(1), 47–55.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Barrett, B. (2013). Sufficiently important difference: Concepts, caveats, and challenges. Medical Decision Making, 33(6), 869–874.CrossRefPubMed Barrett, B. (2013). Sufficiently important difference: Concepts, caveats, and challenges. Medical Decision Making, 33(6), 869–874.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Strand, V., Boers, M., Idzerda, L., Kirwan, J. R., Kvien, T. K., Tugwell, P. S., et al. (2011). It’s good to feel better but it’s better to feel good and even better to feel good as soon as possible for as long as possible. Response criteria and the importance of change at OMERACT 10. Journal of Rheumatology, 38(8), 1720–1727.CrossRefPubMed Strand, V., Boers, M., Idzerda, L., Kirwan, J. R., Kvien, T. K., Tugwell, P. S., et al. (2011). It’s good to feel better but it’s better to feel good and even better to feel good as soon as possible for as long as possible. Response criteria and the importance of change at OMERACT 10. Journal of Rheumatology, 38(8), 1720–1727.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Dougados, M. (2005). It’s good to feel better but it’s better to feel good. Journal of Rheumatology, 32(1), 1–2.PubMed Dougados, M. (2005). It’s good to feel better but it’s better to feel good. Journal of Rheumatology, 32(1), 1–2.PubMed

go back to reference Heiberg, T., Kvien, T. K., Mowinckel, P., Aletaha, D., Smolen, J. S., & Hagen, K. B. (2008). Identification of disease activity and health status cut-off points for the symptom state acceptable to patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 67(7), 967–971.CrossRefPubMed Heiberg, T., Kvien, T. K., Mowinckel, P., Aletaha, D., Smolen, J. S., & Hagen, K. B. (2008). Identification of disease activity and health status cut-off points for the symptom state acceptable to patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 67(7), 967–971.CrossRefPubMed

go back to reference Wolfe, F., & Michaud, K. (2009). Proposed metrics for the determination of rheumatoid arthritis outcome and treatment success and failure. Journal of Rheumatology, 36(1), 27–33.PubMed Wolfe, F., & Michaud, K. (2009). Proposed metrics for the determination of rheumatoid arthritis outcome and treatment success and failure. Journal of Rheumatology, 36(1), 27–33.PubMed

go back to reference Paulsen, A., Roos, E. M., Pedersen, A. B., & Overgaard, S. (2014). Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthopaedica, 85(1), 39–48.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Paulsen, A., Roos, E. M., Pedersen, A. B., & Overgaard, S. (2014). Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthopaedica, 85(1), 39–48.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed