Cargando…

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 essentia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Vet, Henrica C, Terwee, Caroline B, Ostelo, Raymond W, Beckerman, Heleen, Knol, Dirk L, Bouter, Lex M
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16925807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-54
_version_ 1782129465627770880
author de Vet, Henrica C
Terwee, Caroline B
Ostelo, Raymond W
Beckerman, Heleen
Knol, Dirk L
Bouter, Lex M
author_facet de Vet, Henrica C
Terwee, Caroline B
Ostelo, Raymond W
Beckerman, Heleen
Knol, Dirk L
Bouter, Lex M
author_sort de Vet, Henrica C
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Text
id pubmed-1560110
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-15601102006-09-06 Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change de Vet, Henrica C Terwee, Caroline B Ostelo, Raymond W Beckerman, Heleen Knol, Dirk L Bouter, Lex M Health Qual Life Outcomes Commentary 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. BioMed Central 2006-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC1560110/ /pubmed/16925807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-54 Text en Copyright © 2006 de Vet et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentary
de Vet, Henrica C
Terwee, Caroline B
Ostelo, Raymond W
Beckerman, Heleen
Knol, Dirk L
Bouter, Lex M
Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change
title Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change
title_full Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change
title_fullStr Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change
title_full_unstemmed Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change
title_short Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change
title_sort minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16925807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-54
work_keys_str_mv AT devethenricac minimalchangesinhealthstatusquestionnairesdistinctionbetweenminimallydetectablechangeandminimallyimportantchange
AT terweecarolineb minimalchangesinhealthstatusquestionnairesdistinctionbetweenminimallydetectablechangeandminimallyimportantchange
AT osteloraymondw minimalchangesinhealthstatusquestionnairesdistinctionbetweenminimallydetectablechangeandminimallyimportantchange
AT beckermanheleen minimalchangesinhealthstatusquestionnairesdistinctionbetweenminimallydetectablechangeandminimallyimportantchange
AT knoldirkl minimalchangesinhealthstatusquestionnairesdistinctionbetweenminimallydetectablechangeandminimallyimportantchange
AT bouterlexm minimalchangesinhealthstatusquestionnairesdistinctionbetweenminimallydetectablechangeandminimallyimportantchange