Cargando…
Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol
INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often the outcomes of greatest importance to patients. The minimally important difference (MID) provides a measure of the smallest change in the PRO that patients perceive as important. An anchor-based approach is the most appropriate method for MID...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606423/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26428330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007953 |
_version_ | 1782395349170651136 |
---|---|
author | Johnston, Bradley C Ebrahim, Shanil Carrasco-Labra, Alonso Furukawa, Toshi A Patrick, Donald L Crawford, Mark W Hemmelgarn, Brenda R Schunemann, Holger J Guyatt, Gordon H Nesrallah, Gihad |
author_facet | Johnston, Bradley C Ebrahim, Shanil Carrasco-Labra, Alonso Furukawa, Toshi A Patrick, Donald L Crawford, Mark W Hemmelgarn, Brenda R Schunemann, Holger J Guyatt, Gordon H Nesrallah, Gihad |
author_sort | Johnston, Bradley C |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often the outcomes of greatest importance to patients. The minimally important difference (MID) provides a measure of the smallest change in the PRO that patients perceive as important. An anchor-based approach is the most appropriate method for MID determination. No study or database currently exists that provides all anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments; nor are there any accepted standards for appraising the credibility of MID estimates. Our objectives are to complete a systematic survey of the literature to collect and characterise published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments used in evaluating the effects of interventions on chronic medical and psychiatric conditions and to assess their credibility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (1989 to present) to identify studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs of target PRO instruments or reporting empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs. Teams of two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, review full texts of citations, and extract relevant data. On the basis of findings from studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs, we will summarise the available methods and develop an instrument addressing the credibility of empirically ascertained MIDs. We will evaluate the credibility of all studies reporting on the empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs using the credibility instrument, and assess the instrument's inter-rater reliability. We will separately present reports for adult and paediatric populations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No research ethics approval was required as we will be using aggregate data from published studies. Our work will summarise anchor-based methods available to establish MIDs, provide an instrument to assess the credibility of available MIDs, determine the reliability of that instrument, and provide a comprehensive compendium of published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments which will help improve the interpretability of outcome effects in systematic reviews and practice guidelines. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4606423 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46064232015-10-22 Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol Johnston, Bradley C Ebrahim, Shanil Carrasco-Labra, Alonso Furukawa, Toshi A Patrick, Donald L Crawford, Mark W Hemmelgarn, Brenda R Schunemann, Holger J Guyatt, Gordon H Nesrallah, Gihad BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often the outcomes of greatest importance to patients. The minimally important difference (MID) provides a measure of the smallest change in the PRO that patients perceive as important. An anchor-based approach is the most appropriate method for MID determination. No study or database currently exists that provides all anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments; nor are there any accepted standards for appraising the credibility of MID estimates. Our objectives are to complete a systematic survey of the literature to collect and characterise published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments used in evaluating the effects of interventions on chronic medical and psychiatric conditions and to assess their credibility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (1989 to present) to identify studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs of target PRO instruments or reporting empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs. Teams of two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, review full texts of citations, and extract relevant data. On the basis of findings from studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs, we will summarise the available methods and develop an instrument addressing the credibility of empirically ascertained MIDs. We will evaluate the credibility of all studies reporting on the empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs using the credibility instrument, and assess the instrument's inter-rater reliability. We will separately present reports for adult and paediatric populations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No research ethics approval was required as we will be using aggregate data from published studies. Our work will summarise anchor-based methods available to establish MIDs, provide an instrument to assess the credibility of available MIDs, determine the reliability of that instrument, and provide a comprehensive compendium of published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments which will help improve the interpretability of outcome effects in systematic reviews and practice guidelines. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4606423/ /pubmed/26428330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007953 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Evidence Based Practice Johnston, Bradley C Ebrahim, Shanil Carrasco-Labra, Alonso Furukawa, Toshi A Patrick, Donald L Crawford, Mark W Hemmelgarn, Brenda R Schunemann, Holger J Guyatt, Gordon H Nesrallah, Gihad Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol |
title | Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol |
title_full | Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol |
title_fullStr | Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol |
title_short | Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol |
title_sort | minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol |
topic | Evidence Based Practice |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606423/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26428330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007953 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT johnstonbradleyc minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol AT ebrahimshanil minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol AT carrascolabraalonso minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol AT furukawatoshia minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol AT patrickdonaldl minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol AT crawfordmarkw minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol AT hemmelgarnbrendar minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol AT schunemannholgerj minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol AT guyattgordonh minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol AT nesrallahgihad minimallyimportantdifferenceestimatesandmethodsaprotocol |