A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes

Yuting Wang; Tahira Devji; Anila Qasim; Qiukui Hao; Vanessa Wong; Meha Bhatt; Manya Prasad; Ying Wang; Atefeh Noori; Yingqi Xiao; Maryam Ghadimi; Luis Enrique Colunga Lozano; Mark R Phillips; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Madeleine King; Berend Terluin; Caroline B Terwee; Michael Walsh; Toshi A Furukawa; Gordon H Guyatt

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.028

A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes

J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Feb:142:144-151. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.028. Epub 2021 Nov 6.

Authors

Yuting Wang¹, Tahira Devji², Anila Qasim², Qiukui Hao³, Vanessa Wong², Meha Bhatt², Manya Prasad⁴, Ying Wang², Atefeh Noori², Yingqi Xiao⁵, Maryam Ghadimi², Luis Enrique Colunga Lozano⁶, Mark R Phillips², Alonso Carrasco-Labra⁷, Madeleine King⁸, Berend Terluin⁹, Caroline B Terwee¹⁰, Michael Walsh¹¹, Toshi A Furukawa¹², Gordon H Guyatt²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Hamilton, Canada. Electronic address: [email protected].
² Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Hamilton, Canada.
³ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Hamilton, Canada; National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
⁴ Department of Clinical research, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India.
⁵ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Hamilton, Canada; West China School of Nursing / Department of Nursing, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
⁶ Department of clinical medicine, School of Medicine, Universidad de Guadalajara, El Retiro, Guadalajara, Jal. México.
⁷ Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Science, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
⁸ Sydney Quality of Life Office, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Griffith Taylor Building (A19), The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
⁹ Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
¹⁰ Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
¹¹ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Hamilton, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Hamilton, Canada; Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences /McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Hamilton, Canada.
¹² Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto Japan.

PMID: 34752937
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.028

Abstract

Objective: To systematically survey the literature addressing the reporting of studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) and choice of optimal MIDs.

Study design and setting: We searched Medline, Embase and PsycINFO from 1987 to March 2020. Teams of two reviewers independently identified eligible publications and extracted quotations addressing relevant issues for reporting and/or selecting anchor-based MIDs. Using a coding list, we assigned the same code to quotations capturing similar or related issues. For each code, we generated an 'item', i.e., a specific phrase or sentence capturing the underlying concept. When multiple concepts existed under a single code, the team created multiple items for that code. We clustered codes addressing a broader methodological issue into a 'category' and classified items as relevant for reporting, relevant for selecting an anchor-based MID, or both.

Results: We identified 136 eligible publications that provided 6 categories (MID definition, anchors, patient-reported outcome measures, generalizability and statistics) and 24 codes. These codes contained 34 items related to reporting MID studies, of which 29 were also related to selecting MIDs.

Conclusion: The systematic survey identified items related to reporting of anchor-based MID studies and selecting optimal MIDs. These provide a conceptual framework to inform the design of studies related to MIDs, and a basis for developing a reporting standard and a selection approach for MIDs.

Keywords: Minimal important difference; Patient-reported outcome measure; systematic survey.

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Humans
Language
MEDLINE
Patient Reported Outcome Measures*
Quality of Life*
Surveys and Questionnaires