Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change

被引:614
作者
de Vet, Henrica C. [1 ]
Terwee, Caroline B. [1 ]
Ostelo, Raymond W. [1 ]
Beckerman, Heleen [1 ]
Knol, Dirk L. [1 ]
Bouter, Lex M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam Med Ctr, EMGO Inst, NL-1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
D O I
10.1186/1477-7525-4-54
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
Changes in scores on health status questionnaires are difficult to interpret. Several methods to determine minimally important changes (MICs) have been proposed which can broadly be divided in distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Comparisons of these methods have led to insight into essential differences between these approaches. Some authors have tried to come to a uniform measure for the MIC, such as 0.5 standard deviation and the value of one standard error of measurement (SEM). Others have emphasized the diversity of MIC values, depending on the type of anchor, the definition of minimal importance on the anchor, and characteristics of the disease under study. A closer look makes clear that some distribution- based methods have been merely focused on minimally detectable changes. For assessing minimally important changes, anchor-based methods are preferred, as they include a definition of what is minimally important. Acknowledging the distinction between minimally detectable and minimally important changes is useful, not only to avoid confusion among MIC methods, but also to gain information on two important benchmarks on the scale of a health status measurement instrument. Appreciating the distinction, it becomes possible to judge whether the minimally detectable change of a measurement instrument is sufficiently small to detect minimally important changes.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness [J].
Beckerman, H ;
Roebroeck, ME ;
Lankhorst, GJ ;
Becher, JG ;
Bezemer, PD ;
Verbeek, ALM .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2001, 10 (07) :571-578
[2]   A patient specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain [J].
Beurskens, AJ ;
de Vet, HC ;
Köke, AJ ;
Lindeman, E ;
van der Heijden, GJ ;
Regtop, W ;
Knipschild, PG .
JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS, 1999, 22 (03) :144-148
[3]  
Binkley JM, 1999, PHYS THER, V79, P371
[4]   What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) study 5592 [J].
Cella, D ;
Eton, DT ;
Fairclough, DL ;
Bonomi, P ;
Heyes, AE ;
Silberman, C ;
Wolf, MK ;
Johnson, DH .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2002, 55 (03) :285-295
[5]   Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening [J].
Cella, D ;
Hahn, EA ;
Dineen, K .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2002, 11 (03) :207-221
[6]   An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of life [J].
Crosby, RD ;
Kolotkin, RL ;
Williams, GR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 57 (11) :1153-1160
[7]   Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life [J].
Crosby, RD ;
Kolotkin, RL ;
Williams, GR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 56 (05) :395-407
[8]   A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness [J].
Davidson, M ;
Keating, JL .
PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2002, 82 (01) :8-24
[9]   Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed [J].
de Boer, MR ;
de Vet, HCW ;
Terwee, CB ;
Moll, AC ;
Völker-Dieben, HJM ;
van Rens, GHMB .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2005, 58 (12) :1260-1268
[10]   ASSESSING THE RESPONSIVENESS OF FUNCTIONAL SCALES TO CLINICAL-CHANGE - AN ANALOGY TO DIAGNOSTIC-TEST PERFORMANCE [J].
DEYO, RA ;
CENTOR, RM .
JOURNAL OF CHRONIC DISEASES, 1986, 39 (11) :897-906