7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A Necessary Pretense

      Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy
      Maney Publishing

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

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

          Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis.

          To define clinically meaningful changes in 2 widely used health-related quality of life (HQL) instruments in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients with RA (n = 693) who were enrolled in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials completed the Short Form 36 (SF-36) modified health survey and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index at baseline and 6-week followup assessments. Data on 5 RA severity measures were also collected at baseline and at 6 weeks (patient and physician global assessments, joint swelling and tenderness counts, and global pain assessment). Comparison of changes in the SF-36 scales and HAQ scores was made between groups of patients known to differ in the level of change on each RA severity measure. With few exceptions, changes in the SF-36 and HAQ scores were different between patients who differed in the level of change on each RA severity measure. Changes in the SF-36 and HAQ scores were more strongly related to changes in the patient and physician global assessments and patient pain assessment than to changes in the joint swelling and tenderness counts. Based on these results, minimally important changes in the SF-36 scales and HAQ disability scores were determined, which will be useful in interpreting HQL results in clinical trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research.

            The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for an instrument is a much sought after, but elusive figure. In this review we will highlight new findings in this area, including taxonomy of MCID, methods used to ascertain MCID, the perspective taken for evaluating importance, and other sources of variation for MCID values. In the end we believe the MCID will be a context-specific value rather than a fixed number. The review highlights the need to do methodological research in this area, especially concurrent comparisons between approaches, or across different patient groups. There are many faces to the MCID, it is not a simple concept, nor simple to calculate.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach.

              To examine the relation between responsiveness coefficients derived directly from a calculation of average change resulting from a treatment intervention (Responsiveness-Treatment or RT) and those derived from retrospective analysis of changed and unchanged groups (Responsiveness Retrospective or RR) based on a global measure of change. Two approaches were used. First, we used simulation methods to examine the analytical relationship between the RT and RR coefficients. We then located eight studies where it was possible to compute both RT and RR coefficients. As anticipated from theoretical arguments, the RR coefficients were larger than the RT coefficients (1.50 versus 0.41, p < .0001). Within study there was no predictable relationship between the two indices. Across studies, the magnitude of the RR coefficient was strongly related to the correlation with the retrospective global scale, and unrelated to the magnitude of the RT coefficient. The simulated curves fit well with the observed data, and substantiated the observation that the relation between RT and RR coefficients is complex and only weakly related to the size of the treatment effect. Retrospective methods of computing responsiveness yield little information about the ability of an instrument to detect treatment effects, and should not be used as a basis for choice of an instrument for applications to clinical trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy
                Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy
                Maney Publishing
                1066-9817
                2042-6186
                July 18 2013
                October 2008
                July 18 2013
                October 2008
                : 16
                : 4
                : 82E-83E
                Article
                10.1179/jmt.2008.16.4.82E
                19771185
                65ae182e-21bd-432b-8ee6-de7287ecf33e
                © 2008
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article