29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Understanding the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

      1
      Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) represents a threshold value of change in PROM score deemed to have an implication in clinical management. The MCID is frequently used to interpret the significance of results from clinical studies that use PROMs. However, an understanding of the many caveats of the MCID, as well as its strengths and limitations, is necessary. The objective of this article is to provide a review of the calculation, interpretation, and caveats of MCID.

          Data Sources

          MEDLINE and PubMed Central.

          Review Methods

          Literature search—including primary studies, review articles, and consensus statements—pertinent to the objectives of this review using PubMed.

          Conclusions

          The MCID of a PROM may vary depending on the patients and clinical context in which the PROM is given. The primary approaches for calculating MCID are distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Each methodology has strengths and limitations, and the ideal determination of a PROM MCID includes synthesis of results from both approaches. The MCID of a PROM is also not perfect in detecting patients experiencing a clinically important improvement, and this is reflected in its accuracy (eg, sensitivity and specificity).

          Implications for Practice

          Interpretation or application of MCID requires consideration of all caveats underlying the MCID, including the patients in whom it was derived, the limitations of the methodologies used to calculate it, and its accuracy for identifying patients who have experienced clinically significant improvement.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests

          Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories.

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change

              Changes in scores on health status questionnaires are difficult to interpret. Several methods to determine minimally important changes (MICs) have been proposed which can broadly be divided in distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Comparisons of these methods have led to insight into essential differences between these approaches. Some authors have tried to come to a uniform measure for the MIC, such as 0.5 standard deviation and the value of one standard error of measurement (SEM). Others have emphasized the diversity of MIC values, depending on the type of anchor, the definition of minimal importance on the anchor, and characteristics of the disease under study. A closer look makes clear that some distribution-based methods have been merely focused on minimally detectable changes. For assessing minimally important changes, anchor-based methods are preferred, as they include a definition of what is minimally important. Acknowledging the distinction between minimally detectable and minimally important changes is useful, not only to avoid confusion among MIC methods, but also to gain information on two important benchmarks on the scale of a health status measurement instrument. Appreciating the distinction, it becomes possible to judge whether the minimally detectable change of a measurement instrument is sufficiently small to detect minimally important changes.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
                Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
                SAGE Publications
                0194-5998
                1097-6817
                June 11 2019
                October 2019
                June 04 2019
                October 2019
                : 161
                : 4
                : 551-560
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
                Article
                10.1177/0194599819852604
                31159641
                2e31031f-3c5d-4574-9895-7a5066dad0fc
                © 2019

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log