Minimal clinically important difference: Bridging the gap between statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness

Neel Desai,Eric Albrecht

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111366

IF: 9.375

2024-01-21

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

Abstract:Highlights • NONE as the submitted manuscript is an editorial.

anesthesiology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Statistical Inference Framework for the Minimal Clinically Important Difference

Zehua Zhou,Leslie J. Bisson,Jiwei Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.11589

2022-03-01

Abstract:In clinical research, the effect of a treatment or intervention is widely assessed through clinical importance, instead of statistical significance. In this paper, we propose a principled statistical inference framework to learning the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), a vital concept in assessing clinical importance. We formulate the scientific question into a novel statistical learning problem, develop an efficient algorithm for parameter estimation, and establish the asymptotic theory for the proposed estimator. We conduct comprehensive simulation studies to examine the finite sample performance of the proposed method. We also re-analyze the ChAMP (Chondral Lesions And Meniscus Procedures) trial, where the primary outcome is the patient-reported pain score and the ultimate goal is to determine whether there exists a significant difference in post-operative knee pain between patients undergoing debridement versus observation of chondral lesions during the surgery. Some previous analysis of this trial exhibited that the effect of debriding the chondral lesions does not reach a statistical significance. Our analysis reinforces this conclusion that the effect of debriding the chondral lesions is not only statistically non-significant, but also clinically un-important.

Applications,Methodology
The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance

David A. Bloom,Daniel J. Kaplan,Edward Mojica,Eric J. Strauss,Guillem Gonzalez-Lomas,Kirk A. Campbell,Michael J. Alaia,Laith M. Jazrawi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211053869

IF: 4.8

2021-12-02

The American Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:Background: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a term synonymous with orthopaedic clinical research over the past decade. The term represents the smallest change in a patient-reported outcome measure that is of genuine clinical value to patients. It has been derived in a myriad of ways in existing orthopaedic literature. Purpose: To describe the various modalities for deriving the MCID. Study Design: Narrative review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The definitions of common MCID determinations were first identified. These were then evaluated by their clinical and statistical merits and limitations. Results: There are 3 primary ways for determining the MCID: anchor-based analysis, distribution-based analysis, and sensitivity- and specificity-based analysis. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses with respect to its ability to evaluate the patient’s clinical status change from baseline to posttreatment. Anchor-based analyses are inherently tied to clinical status yet lack standardization. Distribution-based analyses are the opposite, with strong foundations in statistics, yet they fail to adequately address the clinical status change. Sensitivity and specificity analyses offer a compromise of the other methodologies but still rely on a somewhat arbitrarily defined global transition question. Conclusion: This current concepts review demonstrates the need for (1) better standardization in the establishment of MCIDs for orthopaedic patient-reported outcome measures and (2) better study design—namely, until a universally accepted MCID derivation exists, studies attempting to derive the MCID should utilize the anchor-based within-cohort design based on Food and Drug Administration recommendations. Ideally, large studies reporting the MCID as an outcome will also derive the value for their populations. It is important to consider that there may be reasonable replacements for current derivations of the MCID. As such, future research should consider an alternative threshold score with a more universal method of derivation.
Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review

Joseph Podurgiel,Daniele Piscitelli,Craig Denegar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mrr.0000000000000613

2024-02-08

International Journal of Rehabilitation Research

Abstract:Healthcare clinicians strive to make meaningful changes in patient function and participation. A minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an estimate of the magnitude of change needed to be meaningful to a patient. Clinicians and investigators may assume that a cited MCID is a valid and generalizable estimate of effect. There are, however, at least two concerns about this assumption. First, multiple methods exist for calculating an MCID that can yield divergent values and raise doubt as to which one to apply. Second, MCID values may be erroneously generalized to patients with dissimilar health conditions. With this in mind, we reviewed the methods used to calculate MCID and citations of reported MCID values for outcome measures commonly used in neurologic, orthopedic, and geriatric populations. Our goal was to assess whether the calculation methods were acknowledged in the cited work and whether the enrolled patients were similar to the sample from which the MCID estimate was derived. We found a concerning variation in the methods employed to estimate MCID. We also found a lack of transparency in identifying calculation methods and applicable health conditions in the cited work. Thus, clinicians and researchers must pay close attention and exercise caution in assuming changes in patient status that exceed a specific MCID reflect meaningful improvements in health status. A common standard for the calculation and reporting of an MCID is needed to address threats to the validity of conclusions drawn from the interpretation of an MCID.

rehabilitation
Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Scales Reported in Stroke Trials: A Review

Biswamohan Mishra,Pachipala Sudheer,Ayush Agarwal,Nilima Nilima,Madakasira Vasantha Padma Srivastava,Venugopalan Y. Vishnu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14010080

IF: 3.333

2024-01-14

Brain Sciences

Abstract:There is a growing awareness of the significance of using minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in stroke research. An MCID is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is considered clinically meaningful. This review is the first to provide a comprehensive summary of various scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in stroke research and their MCID values reported in the literature, including a concise overview of the concept of and methods for determining MCIDs in stroke research. Despite the controversies and limitations surrounding the estimation of MCIDs, their importance in modern clinical trials cannot be overstated. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods are recommended for estimating MCIDs, with patient self-evaluation being a crucial component in capturing the patient's perspective on their health. A combination of methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical relevance of treatment effects, and incorporating the patient's perspective can enhance the care of stroke patients.

neurosciences
Editorial Commentary: The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) Is Less Important Than It Sounds: Patients Seek to Achieve Substantial Clinical Benefits and Not Minimally Perceptible Improvements When They Undergo Arthroscopic Surgery

Adnan Saithna,Mark P. Cote

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.014

2024-01-01

Abstract:The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a frequently reported metric for describing within-patient improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). It was originally defined by Jaeschke et al. as "the smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate, in the absence of troublesome side effects and excessive cost, a change in the patient's management." The latter part of this statement is often omitted, and this results in a loss of the originally intended value through lack of sufficient clinical importance to change management. Other pitfalls in the use of the MCID include that they are population- and condition-specific. As such, MCIDs lack external validity and cannot easily be extrapolated from one study to another. Furthermore, broadly different values can be obtained depending on the calculation method used. This makes the MCID an unhelpful metric when seeking to understand the true efficacy of a given intervention. The Food and Drug Administration recommends anchor-based methodologies (which take into account patient perception), over distribution-based methods (which are purely statistical and do not account for clinical meaningfulness to patients). Regardless, it should be noted that even anchor-based methodologies are susceptible to statistical bias, and measures are apt to be influenced by the regression to mean phenomena, where the value of the preintervention scores and their relationship to postintervention scores can bias estimates of the MCID. Finally, when using MCIDs, one must consider that they are a low bar. This means that patients do not undergo treatment to achieve minimally perceptible clinical improvements; instead, they undergo treatment with the hope of achieving substantial clinical benefit or a patient acceptable symptom state, and so these are more appropriate individual-level metrics to consider when evaluating clinically meaningful outcomes of treatment.

surgery,orthopedics,sport sciences
Alternatives to the P value: connotations of significance

Junyong In,Dong Kyu Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.23630

IF: 5.167

2024-04-29

Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

Abstract:The statistical significance of a clinical trial analysis result is determined by a mathematical calculation and probability based on null hypothesis significance testing. However, statistical significance does not always align with meaningful clinical effects; thus, assigning clinical relevance to statistical significance is unreasonable. A statistical result incorporating a clinically meaningful difference is a better approach to present statistical significance. Thus, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which requires integrating minimum clinically relevant changes from the early stages of research design, has been introduced. As a follow-up to the previous statistical round article on P values, confidence intervals, and effect sizes, in this article, we present hands-on examples of MCID and various effect sizes and discuss the terms statistical significance and clinical relevance, including cautions regarding their use. Keywords: Clinical relevance; Clinical significance; Confidence intervals; Effect size; Minimal clinically important difference; Patient outcome assessment; P value; Statistical significance; Statistics.
The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Changes Greatly Based on the Different Calculation Methods

Marco Franceschini,Angelo Boffa,Elettra Pignotti,Luca Andriolo,Stefano Zaffagnini,Giuseppe Filardo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465231152484

2023-02-24

Abstract:The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Ahead of Print. Background:The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) expresses both the extent of the improvement and the value that patients place on it. MCID use is becoming increasingly widespread to understand the clinical efficacy of a given treatment, define guidelines for clinical practice, and properly interpret trial results. However, there is still large heterogeneity in the different calculation methods.Purpose:To calculate and compare the MCID threshold values of a PROM by applying various methods and analyzing their effect on the study results interpretation.Study Design:Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.Methods:The data set used to investigate the different MCID calculation approaches was based on a database of 312 patients affected by knee osteoarthritis and treated with intra-articular platelet-rich plasma. MCID values were calculated on the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 6 months using 2 approaches: 9 methodologies referred to an anchor-based approach and 8 methodologies to a distribution-based approach. The obtained threshold values were applied to the same series of patients to understand the effect of using different MCID methods in evaluating patient response to treatment.Results:The different methods employed led to MCID values ranging from 1.8 to 25.9 points. The anchor-based methods ranged from 6.3 to 25.9, while the distribution-based ones were from 1.8 to 13.8 points, showing a 4.1× variation of the MCID values within the anchor-based methods and a 7.6× variation within the distribution-based methods. The percentage of patients who reached the MCID for the IKDC subjective score changed based on the specific calculation method used. Among the anchor-based methods, this value varied from 24.0% to 66.0%, while among the distribution-based methods, the percentage of patients reaching the MCID varied from 44.6% to 75.9%.Conclusion:This study proved that different MCID calculation methods lead to highly heterogeneous values, which significantly affect the percentage of patients achieving the MCID in a given population. The wide-ranging thresholds obtained with the different methodologies make it difficult to evaluate the real effectiveness of a given treatment questioning the usefulness of MCID, as currently available, in the clinical research.

orthopedics,sport sciences
Minimal clinically important difference in Alzheimer's disease: Rapid review

Ryan T. Muir,Michael D. Hill,Sandra E. Black,Eric E. Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13770

2024-04-03

Alzheimer s & Dementia

Abstract:INTRODUCTION We conducted a rapid systematic review of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) trial endpoints. METHODS Two reviewers searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed from inception to June 4, 2023. RESULTS Ten articles were retrieved. For mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a change of +2 to +3 points on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS‐Cog), +1 points on the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes (CDR‐SB), −5 points on the integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), or −1 to −2 points on the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) was considered meaningful. For patients with mild AD, a change of +3 on the ADAS‐Cog, +2 points on CDR‐SB, −9 points on the iADRS, or −2 points on the MMSE was considered meaningful. For patients with moderate to severe AD, a change of +2 points on the CDR‐SB or a change of −1.4 to −3 points on the MMSE was considered meaningful. CONCLUSION This review identified previously published MCIDs for AD trial endpoints. Input from patients and caregivers will be needed to derive more meaningful endpoints and thresholds. Highlights This systematic rapid review identified thresholds for minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for recently used Alzheimer's disease (AD) trial endpoints: Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS‐Cog), Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes (CDR‐SB), integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE). MCIDs were higher for more severe stages of AD. Average treatment effects in recent trials of anti‐amyloid disease modifying monoclonal antibodies are lower than previously published MCIDs. In future trials of disease modifying treatments for AD, the proportion of participants in each treatment group that experienced a clinically meaningful decline could be reported. More work is needed to incorporate the values and preferences of patients and care partners in deriving MCIDs.

clinical neurology
How scoring limits the usability of minimal important differences (MIDs) as responder definition (RD): an exemplary demonstration using EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales

Kim Cocks,Jacqueline Buchanan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03181-4

2023-04-24

Quality of Life Research

Abstract:The recommended method for establishing a meaningful threshold for individual changes in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores over time uses an anchor-based method. The patients assess their perceived level of change and this is used to define a threshold on the PRO score which may be considered meaningful to the patient. In practice, such an anchor may not be available. In the absence of alternative information often the meaningful change threshold for assessing between-group differences, the minimally important difference, is used to define meaningful change at the individual level too. This paper will highlight the issues with this, especially where the underlying measurement scale is not continuous.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Calculation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using different methodologies: case study and practical guide

Anita M Klukowska,W Peter Vandertop,Marc L Schröder,Victor E Staartjes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08369-5

Abstract:Introduction: Establishing thresholds of change that are actually meaningful for the patient in an outcome measurement instrument is paramount. This concept is called the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). We summarize available MCID calculation methods relevant to spine surgery, and outline key considerations, followed by a step-by-step working example of how MCID can be calculated, using publicly available data, to enable the readers to follow the calculations themselves. Methods: Thirteen MCID calculations methods were summarized, including anchor-based methods, distribution-based methods, Reliable Change Index, 30% Reduction from Baseline, Social Comparison Approach and the Delphi method. All methods, except the latter two, were used to calculate MCID for improvement of Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) Symptom Severity of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Numeric Rating Scale for Leg Pain and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire Walking Ability domain were used as anchors. Results: The MCID for improvement of ZCQ Symptom Severity ranged from 0.8 to 5.1. On average, distribution-based methods yielded lower MCID values, than anchor-based methods. The percentage of patients who achieved the calculated MCID threshold ranged from 9.5% to 61.9%. Conclusions: MCID calculations are encouraged in spinal research to evaluate treatment success. Anchor-based methods, relying on scales assessing patient preferences, continue to be the "gold-standard" with receiver operating characteristic curve approach being optimal. In their absence, the minimum detectable change approach is acceptable. The provided explanation and step-by-step example of MCID calculations with statistical code and publicly available data can act as guidance in planning future MCID calculation studies.
Can testing clinical significance reduce false positive rates in randomized controlled trials? A snap review

Theophile Bigirumurame,Adetayo S Kasim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-3117-4

2017-12-28

Abstract:Objective: The use of minimum clinically important difference in the hypothesis formulation for superiority trials is similar in principle to the concept of non-inferiority or equivalence trial. However, most clinical trials are analysed testing zero clinical difference. Since the minimum clinically important difference is pre-defined for power calculation, it is important to incorporate it in both the hypothesis testing and the interpretation of findings from clinical trials. Results: We reviewed a set of 50 publications (25 with binary outcome, and 25 with survival time outcome). 20% of the 50 published trials that were statistically significant, were also clinically significant based on the minimum clinically important risk differences (or hazard ratio) used for their power calculations. This snap review seems to suggest that most published trials with statistically significant results were less likely to be clinically significant, which may partly explain the high false positive findings associated with findings from superiority trials. Furthermore, none of the reviewed publications explicitly used minimum clinically important difference in the interpretation of their findings. However, a systematic review is needed to critically appraise the impact of the current practice on false positive rate in published trials with significant findings.
A Utilitarian Perspective on Risk Quantification for Clinical Significance in Binary Outcomes

Junhui Park

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580241248134

2024-01-01

Abstract:Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) in medical research is increasingly being supplemented by estimation statistics, focusing on effect sizes (ESs) and confidence intervals (CIs). This study evaluates the expression of ESs and CIs for binary outcomes. A utilitarian framework is proposed, emphasizing the number of beneficiaries and the impact level. To evaluate clinical significance, minimal clinically important risk difference (MCIRD) is proposed based on event magnitude (EM). Within this framework, risk difference (RD) is introduced as the primary measure. To assess the performance of RD, we compared its statistical power against other measures (risk ratio, RR; odds ratio, OR; Cohen’s h) in individual study scenarios, and visual information conveyance in meta-analysis scenarios. RDs maintain statistical power in comparison to other measures in individual studies. They provide clarity on the true impact of clinical interventions without compromising statistical integrity. Meta-analytic results indicate that using RDs directly enhances transparency, uncovers heterogeneity, and addresses misaligned assumptions. This approach, by quantifying clinical effectiveness under a utilitarian perspective, facilitates the applicability of research to patient care and encourages shared decision-making. The study advocates for reporting baseline risks (BRs) with RDs and recommends a standardized presentation of these statistics. In a utilitarian perspective, adopting RD as the preferred ES can foster a transparent, patient-focused research ethos. This aids in accurately presenting the magnitude and variability of treatment effects, offering a new direction in methodology.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Clinician's Approach to Advanced Statistical Methods: Win Ratios, Restricted Mean Survival Time, Responder Analyses, and Standardized Mean Differences

Melissa Lane,Tyson Miao,Ricky D. Turgeon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08582-w

IF: 5.7

2024-01-05

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:Novel statistical methods have emerged in recent medical literature, which clinicians must understand to properly appraise and integrate evidence into their practice. Some of these key concepts include win ratios, restricted mean survival time, responder analyses, and standardized mean difference. This article offers guidance to busy clinicians on the comprehension and practical applicability of the results to patients. Win ratios provide an alternative method to analyze composite outcomes by prioritizing individual components of the composite; prioritization of the outcomes should be evidence-based, pre-specified, and patient-centered. Restricted mean survival time presents a method to analyze Kaplan–Meier curves when assumptions required for Cox proportional hazards analysis are not met. As it only considers outcomes that occur within a specific timeframe, the duration of follow-up must be appropriately defined and based on prior epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence. Researchers can analyze continuous outcomes with responder analyses, in which participants are dichotomized into "responders" or "non-responders." While clinicians and patients may more easily grasp outcomes analyzed in this way, they should be aware of the loss of information and resulting imprecision, as well as potential to manipulate data presentation. When meta-analyzing continuous outcomes, point estimates can be converted to standardized mean differences to facilitate the combination of data utilizing various outcome measures. However, clinicians may find it challenging to grasp the clinical meaningfulness of a standardized mean difference, and may benefit from converting it to well-known outcomes. By providing the background knowledge of these statistical methods, along with practical applicability, benefits, and inevitable limitations, this article aims to provide clinicians with an approach to appraise the literature and apply the results in clinical practice.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Distinguishing Clinical from Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research

Ajami Gikandi,Julie Hallet,Bas Groot Koerkamp,Clancy J Clark,Keith D Lillemoe,Raja R Narayan,Harvey J Mamon,Marco A Zenati,Nabil Wasif,Dana Gelb Safran,Marc G Besselink,David C Chang,Lara N Traeger,Joel S Weissman,Zhi Ven Fong,Clancy J. Clark,Keith D. Lillemoe,Raja R. Narayan,Harvey J. Mamon,Marco A. Zenati,Marc G. Besselink,David C. Chang,Lara N. Traeger,Joel S. Weissman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000006250

IF: 13.787

2024-02-23

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:Objective: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). Background: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase healthcare costs and treatment toxicity. Methods: CER studies from 2022 issues of Annals of Surgery, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Surgical Research, and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by two different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the Methods. Results: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size (r=−0.30, P =0.038). Conclusion: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical-decision making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

surgery
PROMIS and FAAM Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics

Man Hung,Judith F. Baumhauer,Frank W. Licari,Maren W. Voss,Jerry Bounsanga,Charles L. Saltzman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100718800304

2018-10-04

Abstract:Background: Establishing score points that reflect meaningful change from the patient perspective is important for interpreting patient-reported outcomes. This study estimated the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values of 2 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports subscale within a foot and ankle orthopedic population. Methods: Patients seen for foot and ankle conditions at an orthopedic clinic were administered the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) v1.2, the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) v1.1, and the FAAM Sports at baseline and all follow-up visits. MCID estimation was conducted using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Results: A total of 3069 patients, mean age of 51 years (range = 18-94), were included. The MCIDs for the PROMIS PF ranged from approximately 3 to 30 points (median = 11.3) depending on the methods being used. The MCIDs ranged from 3 to 25 points (median = 8.9) for the PROMIS PI, and from 9 to 77 points (median = 32.5) for the FAAM Sports. Conclusions: This study established a range of MCIDs in the PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, and FAAM Sports indicating meaningful change in patient condition. MCID values were consistent across follow-up periods, but were different across methods. Values below the 25th percentile of MCIDs may be useful for low-risk clinical decisions. Midrange values (eg, near the median) should be used for high stakes decisions in clinical practice (ie, surgery referrals). The MCID values within the interquartile range should be utilized for most decision making. Level of Evidence: Level I, diagnostic study, testing of previously developed diagnostic measure on consecutive patients with reference standard applied.

orthopedics
Anchor-based minimal important difference values are often sensitive to the distribution of the change score

Vach, Werner,Saxer, Franziska

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03610-6

2024-02-07

Quality of Life Research

Abstract:Anchor-based studies are today the most popular approach to determine a minimal important difference value for an outcome variable. However, a variety of construction methods for such values do exist. This constitutes a challenge to the field. In order to distinguish between more or less adequate construction methods, meaningful minimal requirements can be helpful. For example, minimal important difference values should not reflect the intervention(s) the patients are exposed to in the study used for construction, as they should later allow to compare interventions. This requires that they are not sensitive to the distribution of the change score observed. This study aims at investigating to which degree established construction methods fulfil this minimal requirement.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
The minimal important difference in obsessive-compulsive disorder: An analysis of double-blind SSRI trials in adults

Sem E. Cohen,Jasper B. Zantvoord,Taina K. Mattila,Bram W.C. Storosum,Anthonius de Boer,Damiaan Denys

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.1768

2024-09-22

European Psychiatry

Abstract:Background The change in symptoms necessary to be clinically relevant in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is currently unknown. In this study, we aimed to create an empirically validated threshold for clinical significance or minimal important difference (MID). Methods We analyzed individual participant data from short-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled registration trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in adult OCD patients. Data were collected from baseline to week 12. We used equipercentile linking to equate changes in the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale to changes in the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS). We defined the MID as the YBOCS change linked to a CGI improvement of 3 (defined as "minimal improvement"). Results We included 7 trials with a total of 1216 patients. The CGI-scores and YBOCS were moderately to highly correlated. The MID corresponded to 4.9 YBOCS points (95% CI 4.4–5.4) for the full sample, or a 24% YBOCS-decrease compared to baseline. The MID varied with baseline severity, being lower in the group with mild symptoms and higher in the group with severe symptoms. Conclusions By linking the YBOCS to the CGI-I, this is the first study to propose an MID in OCD trials. Having a clearly defined MID can guide future clinical research and help interpretation of efficacy of existing interventions. Our results are clinician-based; however, there is further need for patient-reported outcomes as anchor to the YBOCS.

psychiatry
The minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence: a systematic review

Jordana Barbosa-Silva,Letícia Bojikian Calixtre,Daniela Von Piekartz,Patricia Driusso,Susan Armijo-Olivo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02188-4

2024-03-09

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:The minimal important difference is a valuable metric in ascertaining the clinical relevance of a treatment, offering valuable guidance in patient management. There is a lack of available evidence concerning this metric in the context of outcomes related to female urinary incontinence, which might negatively impact clinical decision-making.

health care sciences & services
Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State and Substantial Clinical Benefit Matter Most to Patients and Must Be Reported Correctly

Jefferson C Brand,James H Lubowitz,Mark P Cote,Elizabeth Matzkin,Michael J Rossi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.06.036

Abstract:Despite a push for a focus on clinical rather than "statistical" significance and an emphasis on reporting of outcome thresholds such as the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB), the PASS and SCB are rarely reported and, when reported, are often reported incorrectly. Yet, patients require satisfaction (PASS) as a result of our treatments, and patients desire to improve substantially (SCB). Determining whether patients are satisfied and/or substantially improved is simple . . . just ask them. The questions are known as anchor questions. Obviously, different patients have different PASS and SCB thresholds, and reliance on previously published literature for values of these thresholds can result in error-thus, the anchor questions. And, each patient must be assessed individually. Outcome thresholds are not group-level metrics, and they must be reported as the percentage of individuals who achieve the clinically significant outcome. Certain patients, such as athletes, have high baseline function and may demand maximum outcome improvement. In contrast, the minimal clinically important difference is a less-than-ideal measure; patients do not desire "minimal" improvement. Journals must do a better job of publishing patient-reported outcome measures that matter most to patients: satisfaction and substantial benefit.
Calculation of the minimal clinically important difference in operated patients with adult spine deformity: advantages of the ROC method and significance of prevalence in threshold selection

Daniel Larrieu,Alice Baroncini,Anouar Bourghli,Javier Pizones,Frank S. Kleinstueck,Ahmet Alanay,Ferran Pellisé,Yann Philippe Charles,Louis Boissiere,Ibrahim Obeid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08339-x

IF: 2.721

2024-06-07

European Spine Journal

Abstract:The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) is crucial to evaluate management outcomes, but different thresholds have been obtained in different works. Part of this variability is due to measurement error and influence of the database, both essential for calculating the MCID. The aim of this study was to introduce the association of the ROC method in the anchor-based MCID calculation for ODI, SRS-22r, and SF-36, to objectively set the threshold for the anchor-based MCID in an adult spine deformity (ASD) population.

clinical neurology,orthopedics

Minimal clinically important difference: Bridging the gap between statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness

A Statistical Inference Framework for the Minimal Clinically Important Difference

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance

Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Scales Reported in Stroke Trials: A Review

Editorial Commentary: The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) Is Less Important Than It Sounds: Patients Seek to Achieve Substantial Clinical Benefits and Not Minimally Perceptible Improvements When They Undergo Arthroscopic Surgery

Alternatives to the P value: connotations of significance

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Changes Greatly Based on the Different Calculation Methods

Minimal clinically important difference in Alzheimer's disease: Rapid review

How scoring limits the usability of minimal important differences (MIDs) as responder definition (RD): an exemplary demonstration using EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales

Calculation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using different methodologies: case study and practical guide

Can testing clinical significance reduce false positive rates in randomized controlled trials? A snap review

A Utilitarian Perspective on Risk Quantification for Clinical Significance in Binary Outcomes

Clinician's Approach to Advanced Statistical Methods: Win Ratios, Restricted Mean Survival Time, Responder Analyses, and Standardized Mean Differences

Distinguishing Clinical from Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research

PROMIS and FAAM Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics

Anchor-based minimal important difference values are often sensitive to the distribution of the change score

The minimal important difference in obsessive-compulsive disorder: An analysis of double-blind SSRI trials in adults

The minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence: a systematic review

Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State and Substantial Clinical Benefit Matter Most to Patients and Must Be Reported Correctly

Calculation of the minimal clinically important difference in operated patients with adult spine deformity: advantages of the ROC method and significance of prevalence in threshold selection