Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 1/2018

15-06-2017 | Special Section: Measuring What Matters (by invitation only)

Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores

Auteurs: Cheryl D. Coon, Karon F. Cook

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2018

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

Abstract

Purpose

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) require evidence not only of reliability, validity, and ability to detect change, but also a definition of what constitutes a meaningful change on the instrument. The responder definition specifies the amount of change on the COA that may be interpreted as a treatment benefit and is critical for interpreting what constitutes a meaningful change on the COA scores. However, the literature that describes methods for developing and applying responder definitions can be difficult to navigate. Clear and concise guidelines regarding which methods to apply under what circumstances and how to interpret the results are lacking. This article provides a guide to the variety of available methods and issues that should be considered when establishing responder definitions for interpreting meaningful changes in COA scores.

Methods

An overview is provided for selecting anchors, developing study designs, planning psychometric analyses, using psychometric results to set responder thresholds, and applying responder thresholds in demonstrating treatment efficacy.

Results

There are a variety of anchor-based methods for consideration, but they all rely on a preference for strongly related and easily interpretable anchors. The benefits of applying multiple anchors and multiple analytic methods are discussed. The process of triangulation can synthesize results across multiple sources to gain confidence in a proposed responder definition. Though a link to meaningfulness from the patient’s perspective is absent, distribution-based methods provide lower bound estimates of score precision and have a role in triangulation. Responder definitions are typically required within regulatory review, but their application may differ across clinical trial programs.

Conclusions

By careful planning of anchor selection, study design, and psychometric methods, COA researchers can establish defensible responder thresholds that ultimately aid patients and clinicians in making informed treatment decisions.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 74(235), 65132–65133. US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 74(235), 65132–65133.
2.
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
3.
go back to reference Hays, R. D., Farivar, S. S., & Liu, H. (2005). Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD, 2(1), 63–67. CrossRefPubMed Hays, R. D., Farivar, S. S., & Liu, H. (2005). Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD, 2(1), 63–67. CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Coon, C. D., & Cappelleri, J. C. (2016). Interpreting change in scores on patient-reported outcome instruments. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 50(1), 22–29. CrossRef Coon, C. D., & Cappelleri, J. C. (2016). Interpreting change in scores on patient-reported outcome instruments. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 50(1), 22–29. CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Coon, C. D. (2016). Telling the interpretation story: the case for strong anchors and multiple methods. Plenary presentation at the 23rd annual conference of the International Society of Quality for Life Research; October 2016. Copenhagen, Denmark. Coon, C. D. (2016). Telling the interpretation story: the case for strong anchors and multiple methods. Plenary presentation at the 23rd annual conference of the International Society of Quality for Life Research; October 2016. Copenhagen, Denmark.
6.
go back to reference 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(8), 869–879. CrossRefPubMed 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(8), 869–879. CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Wyrwich, K. W., Norquist, J. M., Lenderking, W. R., Acaster, S., & The Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL). (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., & The Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL). (2013). Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 22(3), 475–483. CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Nixon, A., Doll, H., Kerr, C., Burge, R., & Naegeli, A. N. (2016). Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients. Health and Quality Life Outcomes, 14, 25. CrossRef Nixon, A., Doll, H., Kerr, C., Burge, R., & Naegeli, A. N. (2016). Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients. Health and Quality Life Outcomes, 14, 25. CrossRef
9.
go back to reference 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), 1–4. CrossRefPubMed 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), 1–4. CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Gerlinger, C., Schumacher, U., Faustmann, T., Colligs, A., Schmitz, H., & Seitz, C. (2010). Defining a minimal clinically important difference for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain measured on a visual analog scale: analyses of two placebo-controlled, randomized trials. Health and Quality Life Outcomes, 8(1), 138. CrossRef Gerlinger, C., Schumacher, U., Faustmann, T., Colligs, A., Schmitz, H., & Seitz, C. (2010). Defining a minimal clinically important difference for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain measured on a visual analog scale: analyses of two placebo-controlled, randomized trials. Health and Quality Life Outcomes, 8(1), 138. CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Gerlinger, C., & Schmelter, T. (2011). Determining the non-inferiority margin for patient reported outcomes. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10(5), 410–413. CrossRefPubMed Gerlinger, C., & Schmelter, T. (2011). Determining the non-inferiority margin for patient reported outcomes. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10(5), 410–413. CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Wyrwich, K. W., Bullinger, M., Aaronson, N., Hays, R. D., Patrick, D. L., & Symonds, T. (2005). Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 285–295. CrossRefPubMed Wyrwich, K. W., Bullinger, M., Aaronson, N., Hays, R. D., Patrick, D. L., & Symonds, T. (2005). Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 285–295. CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Uryniak, T., Chan, I. S. F., Fedorov, V. V., et al. (2011). Responder analyses—a PhRMA position paper. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 3(3), 476–487. CrossRef Uryniak, T., Chan, I. S. F., Fedorov, V. V., et al. (2011). Responder analyses—a PhRMA position paper. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 3(3), 476–487. CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Xermelo [package insert]. (2017). The Woodlands. Texas: Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Xermelo [package insert]. (2017). The Woodlands. Texas: Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Metagegevens
Titel
Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores
Auteurs
Cheryl D. Coon
Karon F. Cook
Publicatiedatum
15-06-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1616-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2018

Quality of Life Research 1/2018 Naar de uitgave