Cargando…

Minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions

INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION: Many health studies measure a continuous outcome and compare means between groups. Since means for biological data are often difficult to interpret clinically, it is common to dichotomise using a cut-point and present the ‘percentage abnormal’ alongside or in place of me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peacock, Janet L, Lo, Jessica, Rees, Judith R, Sauzet, Odile
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8578978/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34753761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052338
_version_ 1784596347387641856
author Peacock, Janet L
Lo, Jessica
Rees, Judith R
Sauzet, Odile
author_facet Peacock, Janet L
Lo, Jessica
Rees, Judith R
Sauzet, Odile
author_sort Peacock, Janet L
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION: Many health studies measure a continuous outcome and compare means between groups. Since means for biological data are often difficult to interpret clinically, it is common to dichotomise using a cut-point and present the ‘percentage abnormal’ alongside or in place of means. Examples include birthweight where ‘abnormal’ is defined as <2500 g (low birthweight), systolic blood pressure with abnormal defined as >140 mm Hg (high blood pressure) and lung function with varying definitions of the ‘limit of normal’. In vulnerable populations with low means, for example, birthweight in a population of preterm babies, a given difference in means between two groups will represent a larger difference in the percentage with low birthweight than in a general population of babies where most will be full term. Thus, in general, the difference in percentage of patients with abnormal values for a given difference in means varies according to the reference population’s mean value. This phenomenon leads to challenges in interpreting differences in means in vulnerable populations and in defining an outcome-specific minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in means since the proportion abnormal, which is useful in interpreting means, is not constant—it varies with the population mean. This has relevance for study power calculations and data analyses in vulnerable populations where a small observed difference in means may be difficult to interpret clinically and may be disregarded, even if associated with a relatively large difference in percentage abnormal which is clinically relevant. METHODS: To address these issues, we suggest both difference in means and difference in percentage (proportion) abnormal are considered when choosing the MCID, and that both means and percentages abnormal are reported when analysing the data. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a distributional approach to analyse proportions classified as abnormal that avoids the usual loss of precision and power associated with dichotomisation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8578978
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85789782021-11-19 Minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions Peacock, Janet L Lo, Jessica Rees, Judith R Sauzet, Odile BMJ Open Research Methods INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION: Many health studies measure a continuous outcome and compare means between groups. Since means for biological data are often difficult to interpret clinically, it is common to dichotomise using a cut-point and present the ‘percentage abnormal’ alongside or in place of means. Examples include birthweight where ‘abnormal’ is defined as <2500 g (low birthweight), systolic blood pressure with abnormal defined as >140 mm Hg (high blood pressure) and lung function with varying definitions of the ‘limit of normal’. In vulnerable populations with low means, for example, birthweight in a population of preterm babies, a given difference in means between two groups will represent a larger difference in the percentage with low birthweight than in a general population of babies where most will be full term. Thus, in general, the difference in percentage of patients with abnormal values for a given difference in means varies according to the reference population’s mean value. This phenomenon leads to challenges in interpreting differences in means in vulnerable populations and in defining an outcome-specific minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in means since the proportion abnormal, which is useful in interpreting means, is not constant—it varies with the population mean. This has relevance for study power calculations and data analyses in vulnerable populations where a small observed difference in means may be difficult to interpret clinically and may be disregarded, even if associated with a relatively large difference in percentage abnormal which is clinically relevant. METHODS: To address these issues, we suggest both difference in means and difference in percentage (proportion) abnormal are considered when choosing the MCID, and that both means and percentages abnormal are reported when analysing the data. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a distributional approach to analyse proportions classified as abnormal that avoids the usual loss of precision and power associated with dichotomisation. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8578978/ /pubmed/34753761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052338 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Methods
Peacock, Janet L
Lo, Jessica
Rees, Judith R
Sauzet, Odile
Minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions
title Minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions
title_full Minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions
title_fullStr Minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions
title_full_unstemmed Minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions
title_short Minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions
title_sort minimal clinically important difference in means in vulnerable populations: challenges and solutions
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8578978/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34753761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052338
work_keys_str_mv AT peacockjanetl minimalclinicallyimportantdifferenceinmeansinvulnerablepopulationschallengesandsolutions
AT lojessica minimalclinicallyimportantdifferenceinmeansinvulnerablepopulationschallengesandsolutions
AT reesjudithr minimalclinicallyimportantdifferenceinmeansinvulnerablepopulationschallengesandsolutions
AT sauzetodile minimalclinicallyimportantdifferenceinmeansinvulnerablepopulationschallengesandsolutions