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 3/2015

01-03-2015

Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores

Auteurs: Soili Alanne, Risto P. Roine, Pirjo Räsänen, Tarja Vainiola, Harri Sintonen

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2015

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

Purpose

To facilitate the interpretation of empirical results produced by the 15D, a generic, preference-based instrument for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a subjective five-category global assessment scale (GAS) was used as an external anchor to determine the minimum important change (MIC) in the 15D scores.

Methods

Altogether 4,903 hospital patients representing sixteen disease entities and having the 15D score at baseline repeated the HRQoL assessment at 6 months after treatment and answered the question: compared to the situation before treatment, my overall health status is now (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) much the same, (4) slightly worse, (5) much worse. Regression analysis was used to estimate the MIC for improvement/deterioration, defined as the lower/upper limit of 99.9 % confidence interval of the regression coefficient, standardized for baseline HRQoL, for categories (2) and (4), respectively, and confirmed by ROC curve analysis.

Results

The limits or intervals for classifying the changes of 15D scores into GAS categories were >.035 for (1), .015–.035 for (2),>−.015 and<.015 for (3), −.035–−.015 for (4) and <−.035 for (5). The lower/upper limits of ±.015 for categories (2) and (4) can be regarded as the generic MIC thresholds for improvement/deterioration, respectively.

Conclusions

The generic MICs for the change of 15D scores are ±.015. Follow-up studies using the 15D should report the mean change in the 15D score, its statistical significance, relationship to the MIC, and the distribution of the changes of the 15D scores into the five categories.
vorige artikel Mapping FACT-P to EQ-5D in a large cross-sectional study of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients
volgende artikel Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change
Literatuur
1.
Jaeshke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415.CrossRef
2.
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K., & Norman, G. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 371–383.CrossRefPubMed
3.
King, M. T. (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): A critique of terminology and methods. Expert Expert review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 11(2), 171–184.CrossRef
4.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J. N., Wright, J. G., Wells, G., Boers, M., et al. (2001). Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology. Minimal clinically important difference. The Journal of Rheumatology, 28, 400–405.PubMed
5.
de Vet, H. C., Beckerman, H., Terwee, C. B., Terluin, B., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). Definition of clinical differences. The Journal of Rheumatology, 33, 434.PubMed
6.
de Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2010). The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 804–805.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gatchel, R. J., Mayer, T. G., & Chou, R. (2012). What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure? A reconsideration of its clinical value in evaluating efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 28(5), 387–396.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Lydick, E., & Epstein, R. S. (1993). Interpretation of quality of life changes. Quality of Life Research, 2, 221–226.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
Norman, G., Sloan, J., & Wyrwich, K. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592.PubMed
11.
Jakobson, N., & Truaux, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19.CrossRef
12.
Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for indentifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(9), 861–873.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2004). An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 1153–1160.CrossRefPubMed
14.
de Vet, H. C., Ostelo, R. W. J. D., Terwee, C., van der Roer, N., Knol, D., Beckerman, H., et al. (2007). Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and distribution-based approach. Quality of Life Research, 16, 131–142.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
15.
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 4.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
16.
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1523–1532.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 70.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
18.
Wiebe, S., Matijevic, S., Eliasziw, M., & Derry, P. A. (2002). Clinically important change in quality of life in epilepsy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 73, 116–120.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
19.
Sintonen, H. (1994). Outcome measurement in acid-related diseases. Pharmacoeconomics, 5(suppl. 3), 17–26.CrossRef
20.
21.
22.
Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Annals of Medicine, 33, 328–336.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Wheaton, L., & Pope, J. (2010). The minimally important difference for patient-reported outcomes in spondyloarthropathies including pain, fatigue, sleep and Health Assessment Questionnaire. The Journal of Rheumatology, 37(4), 816–822.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kwok, T., & Pope, J. E. (2010). Minimally important difference for patient-reported outcomes in psoriatic arthritis: Health Assessment Questionnaire and pain, fatigue and global visual analog scales. The Journal of Rheumatology, 37(5), 1024–1028.CrossRefPubMed
26.
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.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2014). Don’t middle your MIDs: Regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1–4.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
28.
Copay, A., Subach, B., Glassman, S., Polly, D., & Schuler, T. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. The Spine Journal, 7, 541–546.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Åberg, F., Rissanen, A. M., Sintonen, H., Roine, R. P., Höckerstedt, K., & Isoniemi, H. (2009). Health-related quality of life and employment status of liver transplant patients. Liver Transplantation, 15(1), 64–72.CrossRefPubMed
30.
McClimans, L. (2011). Interpretability, validity, and the minimum important difference. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 32, 389–401.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Wyrwich, K. W., & Tardino, V. M. (2006). Understanding global transition assessments. Quality of Life Research, 15, 995–1004.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores
Auteurs
Soili Alanne
Risto P. Roine
Pirjo Räsänen
Tarja Vainiola
Harri Sintonen
Publicatiedatum
01-03-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2015

Quality of Life Research 3/2015 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Improved statistical analysis of pre- and post-treatment patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the applicability of piecewise linear regression splines

OriginalPaper

Content verification of the EORTC QLQ-C30/EORTC QLQ-BR23 with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

OriginalPaper

Cross-cultural validity of the thyroid-specific quality-of-life patient-reported outcome measure, ThyPRO

OriginalPaper

Creating meaningful cut-scores for Neuro-QOL measures of fatigue, physical functioning, and sleep disturbance using standard setting with patients and providers

OriginalPaper

Mapping FACT-P to EQ-5D in a large cross-sectional study of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients

Response Shift and Missing Data

Identifying reprioritization response shift in a stroke caregiver population: a comparison of missing data methods