Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol.

PubWeight™: 0.83‹?›

🔗 View Article (PMC 4606423)

Published in BMJ Open on October 01, 2015

Authors

Bradley C Johnston1, Shanil Ebrahim2, Alonso Carrasco-Labra3, Toshi A Furukawa4, Donald L Patrick5, Mark W Crawford6, Brenda R Hemmelgarn7, Holger J Schunemann8, Gordon H Guyatt8, Gihad Nesrallah9

Author Affiliations

1: Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Research Institute, The Hospital For Sick Children, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
2: Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Department of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
3: Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Evidence-Based Dentistry Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Chile, Independencia, Santiago, Chile.
4: Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
5: Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
6: Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
7: Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
8: Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
9: Nephrology Program, Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Division of Nephrology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Associated clinical trials:

Defining Decision Thresholds for Judgments on Health Benefits and Harms: Study Protocol | NCT05237635

Articles cited by this

The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care (1992) 144.02

An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry (1961) 84.61

Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull (1979) 71.07

GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (2008) 33.10

Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials (1989) 15.99

Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol (1994) 9.50

Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc (2002) 7.00

Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med (1998) 6.80

Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ (1998) 3.97

GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.54

Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ (2010) 3.54

Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 2.69

The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 2.55

How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA (2014) 1.86

A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res (2011) 1.81

Commentary--goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res (2005) 1.63

Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol (2008) 1.15

Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes (2010) 1.09

Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses-part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers. Health Qual Life Outcomes (2013) 1.06

Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for single-level cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One (2012) 1.05

Minimal clinically important differences in Incontinence Quality-of-Life scores in stress urinary incontinence. Urology (2006) 0.94

New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures. J Clin Epidemiol (2012) 0.92

Articles by these authors

A distribution model of the responses to each depressive symptom item in a general population: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open (2015) 1.07

Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey. BMJ Open (2015) 0.85

Management of chronic neuropathic pain: a protocol for a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open (2014) 0.79

Protocol registration and selective outcome reporting in recent psychiatry trials: new antidepressants and cognitive behavioural therapies. Acta Psychiatr Scand (2015) 0.76

User-driven conversations about dialysis through Facebook: A qualitative thematic analysis. Nephrology (Carlton) (2017) 0.76

Depressed with cancer can respond to antidepressants, but further research is needed to confirm and expand on these findings. Evid Based Ment Health (2014) 0.75

Polymyxin B-immobilised haemoperfusion and mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis/septic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open (2016) 0.75

Reporting missing participant data in randomised trials: systematic survey of the methodological literature and a proposed guide. BMJ Open (2015) 0.75

Prognosis of delirium. Evid Based Ment Health (2017) 0.75

Helping people with schizophrenia to quit smoking. Evid Based Ment Health (2014) 0.75

Association between statistical significance and time to publication among systematic reviews: a study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation. BMJ Open (2017) 0.75

Which psychotherapy for PTSD? Evid Based Ment Health (2016) 0.75

Minimally Important Differences in Patient or Proxy-Reported Outcome Studies Relevant to Children: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics (2017) 0.75