Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: Implications for sample-size calculation

被引:54
作者
van Walraven, C
Mahon, JL
Moher, D
Bohm, C
Laupacis, A
机构
[1] Ottawa Civic Hosp, Clin Epidemiol Unit, Loeb Res Unit, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada
[2] Univ Ottawa, Dept Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Western Ontario, Dept Med, London, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Ottawa, Dept Pediat & Epidemiol & Community Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[5] Childrens Hosp Eastern Ontario, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L1, Canada
[6] Univ Saskatchewan, Dept Med, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0W0, Canada
关键词
minimal important difference; abdominal aortic aneurysm; sample size calculation; survey;
D O I
10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00050-5
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
The minimal important difference (MID) is the smallest benefit of treatment that would result in clinicians recommending it to their patients. The MID is necessary to calculate sample size for randomized clinical trials, but its chosen value is often arbitrary. This study set out to determine the practicability of surveying physicians to elicit the MID for clinical trial sample-size calculation. Using a mail survey, we elicited the MID of different physician specialties (family medicine, internal medicine, vascular surgery) for using propranolol to slow abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) growth assuming that propranolol was efficacious in this condition. We used different outcome measures (growth rate or proportion of patients requiring surgery) and different methods of data presentation for the proportion of patients requiring surgery (absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat). The MID varied significantly by physician specialty, experience with AAA and propranolol, and the method used to elicit the MID. Consequently, sample-size calculations using these various MIDs varied from 116 to 3015. Future attempts to elicit the MID need tu consider carefully who is surveyed, how data are presented, and how opinions are elicited. J CLIN EPIDEMIOL 52;8:717-723, 1999. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:717 / 723
页数:7
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], SAS STAT US GUID VER
[2]   INFLUENCE OF METHOD OF REPORTING STUDY RESULTS ON DECISION OF PHYSICIANS TO PRESCRIBE DRUGS TO LOWER CHOLESTEROL CONCENTRATION [J].
BUCHER, HC ;
WEINBACHER, M ;
GYR, K .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1994, 309 (6957) :761-764
[3]   INDEXES AND BOUNDARIES FOR QUANTITATIVE SIGNIFICANCE IN STATISTICAL DECISIONS [J].
BURNAND, B ;
KERNAN, WN ;
FEINSTEIN, AR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1990, 43 (12) :1273-1284
[4]  
COLLIN J, 1990, J CARDIOVASC SURG, V31, P168
[5]   ABSOLUTELY RELATIVE - HOW RESEARCH RESULTS ARE SUMMARIZED CAN AFFECT TREATMENT DECISIONS [J].
FORROW, L ;
TAYLOR, WC ;
ARNOLD, RM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1992, 92 (02) :121-124
[6]  
Friedman LM, 1985, FUNDAMENTALS CLIN TR
[7]   ABDOMINAL AORTIC-ANEURYSM EXPANSION RATE - EFFECT OF SIZE AND BETA-ADRENERGIC-BLOCKADE [J].
GADOWSKI, GR ;
PILCHER, DB ;
RICCI, MA .
JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 1994, 19 (04) :727-731
[8]   PATIENTS VIEWS ON THE LEAST ACCEPTABLE INCREASE IN SURVIVAL WITH ZIDOVUDINE TREATMENT [J].
GOTZSCHE, PC .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 1991, 23 (04) :509-510
[9]   COMMUNICATING THE BENEFITS OF CHRONIC PREVENTIVE THERAPY - GOES THE FORMAT OF EFFICACY DATA DETERMINE PATIENTS ACCEPTANCE OF TREATMENT [J].
HUX, JE ;
NAYLOR, CD .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1995, 15 (02) :152-157
[10]   PRESCRIBING PROPENSITY - INFLUENCE OF LIFE-EXPECTANCY GAINS AND DRUG COSTS [J].
HUX, JE ;
LEVINTON, CM ;
NAYLOR, CD .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1994, 9 (04) :195-201