Combining Anchor and Distribution-Based Methods to Derive Minimal Clinically Important Differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Anemia and Fatigue Scales

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

Magnitude differences in scores on a measure of quality of life that correspond to differences in function or clinical course are called clinically important differences (CIDs). Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to provide ranges of CIDs for five targeted scale scores of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) questionnaire. Three samples of cancer patients were used: Sample 1 included 50 patients participating in a validation study of the FACT-An; Sample 2 included 131 patients participating in a longitudinal study of chemotherapy-induced fatigue; sample 3 included 2,402 patients enrolled in a community-based clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of a treatment for anemia. Three clinical indicators (hemoglobin level; performance status; response to treatment) were used to determine anchor-based differences. One-half of the standard deviation and 1 standard error of measurement were used as distribution-based criteria. Analyses supported the following whole number estimates of a minimal CID for these five targeted scores: Fatigue Scale = 3.0; FACT-G total score = 4.0; FACT-An total score = 7.0; Trial Outcome Index-Fatigue = 5.0; and Trial Outcome Index-Anemia = 6.0. These estimates provide a basis for sample size estimation when planning for a clinical trial or other longitudinal study, when the purpose is to ensure detection of meaningful change over time. They can also be used in conjunction with more traditional clinical markers to assist investigators in determining treatment efficacy.

Related collections

Most cited references 9

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.

K Wyrwich, W Tierney, F D Wolinsky (1999)

This study used the standard error of measurement (SEM) to evaluate intra-individual change on both the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) and the SF-36. After analyzing the reliability and validity of both instruments at baseline among 471 COPD outpatients, the SEM was compared to established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) standards for three CRQ dimensions. A value of one SEM closely approximated the MCID standards for all CRQ dimensions. This SEM-based criterion was then validated by cross-classifying the change status (improved, stable, or declined) of 393 follow-up outpatients using the one-SEM criterion and the MCID standard. Excellent agreement was achieved for all three CRQ dimensions. Although MCID standards have not been established for the SF-36, the one-SEM criterion was explored in these change scores. Among SF-36 scales demonstrating acceptable reliability and reasonable variance, the percent of individuals within each change category was consistent with those seen in the CRQ dimensions. These results replicate previous findings where a value of one SEM also closely approximated MCIDs for all dimensions of the Chronic Heart Disease Questionnaire among cardiovascular outpatients. The one-SEM criterion should be explored in other health-related quality of life instruments with established MCIDs.

0 comments Cited 197 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.

Simon Tierney, Kathleen Wyrwich, Christoph Nienaber … (1999)

To compare the standard error of measurement (SEM) with established standards for clinically relevant intra-individual change in an evaluation of health-related quality of life. Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Six hundred and five outpatients with a history of cardiac problems attending the general medicine clinics of a major academic medical center. Baseline and follow-up interviews included a modified version of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ) and the SF-36. The SEM values corresponding to established standards for minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) on the CHQ were determined. Individual change on the SF-36 was explored using the same SEM criterion. One-SEM changes in this population corresponded well to the patient-driven MCID standards on all CHQ dimensions (weighted kappas (0.87; P < 0.001). The distributions of outpatients who improved, remained stable, or declined (defined by the one-SEM criterion) were generally consistent between CHQ dimensions and SF-36 subscales. The use of the SEM to evaluate individual patient change should be explored among other health-related quality of life instruments with established standards for clinically relevant differences. Only then can it be determined whether the one-SEM criterion can be consistently applied as a proxy for clinically meaningful change.