Cargando…
How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods
BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review is to describe the different types of anchors and statistical methods used in estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) instruments. METHODS: PubMed and Google scholar were searched for Engli...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7218583/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32398083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01344-w |
_version_ | 1783532828799008768 |
---|---|
author | Mouelhi, Yosra Jouve, Elisabeth Castelli, Christel Gentile, Stéphanie |
author_facet | Mouelhi, Yosra Jouve, Elisabeth Castelli, Christel Gentile, Stéphanie |
author_sort | Mouelhi, Yosra |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review is to describe the different types of anchors and statistical methods used in estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) instruments. METHODS: PubMed and Google scholar were searched for English and French language studies published from 2010 to 2018 using selected keywords. We included original articles (reviews, meta-analysis, commentaries and research letters were not considered) that described anchors and statistical methods used to estimate the MCID in HRQoL instruments. RESULTS: Forty-seven papers satisfied the inclusion criteria. The MCID was estimated for 6 generic and 18 disease-specific instruments. Most studies in our review used anchor-based methods (n = 41), either alone or in combination with distribution-based methods. The most common applied anchors were non-clinical, from the viewpoint of patients. Different statistical methods for anchor-based methods were applied and the Change Difference (CD) was the most used one. Most distributional methods included 0.2 standard deviations (SD), 0.3 SD, 0.5 SD and 1 standard error of measurement (SEM). MCID values were very variable depending on methods applied, and also on clinical context of the study. CONCLUSION: Multiple anchors and methods were applied in the included studies, which lead to different estimations of MCID. Using several methods enables to assess the robustness of the results. This corresponds to a sensitivity analysis of the methods. Close collaboration between statisticians and clinicians is recommended to integrate an agreement regarding the appropriate method to determine MCID for a specific context. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7218583 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72185832020-05-18 How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods Mouelhi, Yosra Jouve, Elisabeth Castelli, Christel Gentile, Stéphanie Health Qual Life Outcomes Review BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review is to describe the different types of anchors and statistical methods used in estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) instruments. METHODS: PubMed and Google scholar were searched for English and French language studies published from 2010 to 2018 using selected keywords. We included original articles (reviews, meta-analysis, commentaries and research letters were not considered) that described anchors and statistical methods used to estimate the MCID in HRQoL instruments. RESULTS: Forty-seven papers satisfied the inclusion criteria. The MCID was estimated for 6 generic and 18 disease-specific instruments. Most studies in our review used anchor-based methods (n = 41), either alone or in combination with distribution-based methods. The most common applied anchors were non-clinical, from the viewpoint of patients. Different statistical methods for anchor-based methods were applied and the Change Difference (CD) was the most used one. Most distributional methods included 0.2 standard deviations (SD), 0.3 SD, 0.5 SD and 1 standard error of measurement (SEM). MCID values were very variable depending on methods applied, and also on clinical context of the study. CONCLUSION: Multiple anchors and methods were applied in the included studies, which lead to different estimations of MCID. Using several methods enables to assess the robustness of the results. This corresponds to a sensitivity analysis of the methods. Close collaboration between statisticians and clinicians is recommended to integrate an agreement regarding the appropriate method to determine MCID for a specific context. BioMed Central 2020-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7218583/ /pubmed/32398083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01344-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Mouelhi, Yosra Jouve, Elisabeth Castelli, Christel Gentile, Stéphanie How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods |
title | How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods |
title_full | How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods |
title_fullStr | How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods |
title_full_unstemmed | How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods |
title_short | How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods |
title_sort | how is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? review of anchors and methods |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7218583/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32398083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01344-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mouelhiyosra howistheminimalclinicallyimportantdifferenceestablishedinhealthrelatedqualityoflifeinstrumentsreviewofanchorsandmethods AT jouveelisabeth howistheminimalclinicallyimportantdifferenceestablishedinhealthrelatedqualityoflifeinstrumentsreviewofanchorsandmethods AT castellichristel howistheminimalclinicallyimportantdifferenceestablishedinhealthrelatedqualityoflifeinstrumentsreviewofanchorsandmethods AT gentilestephanie howistheminimalclinicallyimportantdifferenceestablishedinhealthrelatedqualityoflifeinstrumentsreviewofanchorsandmethods |