Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In daily practice, physicians translate knowledge from clinical trials to practice, to improve health in individual patients. To help interpret meaningful change on disease outcome measures, the concept of minimal important change (MIC) was conceived. The objective of this study was to investigate whether MIC values are suited for individual patient monitoring.

Methods

Three main elements of the MIC concept were evaluated: (1) MIC values for improvement and deterioration were determined, and the amount of misclassification present in quantifying minimal change was analyzed. (2) Discordance between change categories (improved, unchanged, deteriorated), defined by the MIC values, and patients’ satisfaction with their health was inspected. (3) Discordance between change categories, defined by MIC values, and patients’ willingness to alter therapy was inspected.

Results

MIC value analysis was based on 469 patients with RA seen in daily practice. The chance of falsely classifying health change of an individual patient was high (false-positive range 19–30 % and false-negative range 43–72 %). Of patients classified as improved, 24 % were not satisfied with their health and 69 % were not willing to change therapy. Of patients classified as deteriorated, 54 % were satisfied with their health and 57 % were not willing to change therapy.

Conclusions

The misclassification in the quantification of change and high proportions of discordance between change categories defined by MIC cutoff values and patients’ satisfaction and willingness to alter therapy indicate that MIC values as such are not suited for individual patient monitoring.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. DREAM. (2013). Retrieved 2013 May 3, from www.dreamregistry.nl.

  26. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. DAS28.nl. (2013). Retrieved 2013 May 3, from http://www.das28.nl.

  34. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 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  Google Scholar 

  68. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Barrett, B. (2013). Sufficiently important difference: Concepts, caveats, and challenges. Medical Decision Making, 33(6), 869–874.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 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  Google Scholar 

  77. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following people for their help in recruiting patients and ensuring excellent data management: Joke Alberts-Pijnenborg, Erik Brummelkamp, Thea van Gaalen, Rienke Korver, Marion de Lange-Brandt, Lia Schalkwijk, Diana van Tuijl, Inge Verhagen-Stolk and Carine Vogel.

Ethical standard

For this study, patients were required to fill out a one page questionnaire before their outpatient clinic visit. Data of these questionnaires were combined with data from a daily practice registry and were only used for research purposes. This type of study is classified as a non-invasive, observational study with a negligible risk and low respondent burden. According to Dutch legal and medical ethical standards, approval of an ethics committee is not required for this type of study and was therefore not obtained. All patients were informed by a specialized rheumatology nurse about the aim and duration of the study and the requirements for participants prior to their inclusion. All participants were free to revoke their participation in the study at any time and without notice of a reason. All data disclosing the identity of subjects were removed before analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rheumatology (470), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Jos Hendrikx & Jaap Fransen

  2. Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Wietske Kievit

  3. Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Piet L. C. M. van Riel

Authors
  1. Jos Hendrikx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaap Fransen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wietske Kievit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Piet L. C. M. van Riel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jos Hendrikx.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hendrikx, J., Fransen, J., Kievit, W. et al. Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change. Qual Life Res 24, 607–616 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0809-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0809-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation