The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies.

@article{Angst2017TheMC,
  title={The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies.},
  author={Felix Angst and Andr{\'e} G. Aeschlimann and Jules Angst},
  journal={Journal of clinical epidemiology},
  year={2017},
  volume={82},
  pages={
          128-136
        }
}
View on PubMed
jclinepi.com
176 Citations
Highly Influential Citations
17
Background Citations
49
Methods Citations
33
Results Citations
3

176 Citations

Using a distribution-based approach and systematic review methods to derive minimum clinically important differences

A distribution-based approach using data included in a systematic review of cognitive enhancing medications for dementia approximated known MCIDs and performed better when it derived MCIDs from baseline as opposed to mean change SDs.

Practical issues encountered while determining Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes

Using a real dataset, several major methodological issues raised by the estimation of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of a Patient-Reported Outcomes instrument are highlighted and the substantial impact of some methodological issues usually never dealt with for MCID estimation is illustrated.

A Statistical Inference Framework for the Minimal Clinically Important Difference

A principled statistical inference framework to learn the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is proposed, an efficient algorithm for parameter estimation is developed, and the asymptotic theory for the proposed estimator is established.

Effective dose 50 method as the minimal clinically important difference: Evidence from depression trials

Baseline health status and setting impacted Minimal Clinically Important Differences in COPD: an explorative study.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Outcome Measure Score Interpretation.

Establishing Thresholds for Minimal Clinically Important Differences for the Peripheral Artery Disease Questionnaire

In patients with new or worsened claudication, a 10-point change in PAQ summary score represents an MCID, which needs external validation and may inform the interpretation of PAQ scores when used as outcomes in clinical trials or in routine clinical care.

Ascertaining minimal clinically meaningful changes in symptoms of depression rated by the 15-item Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.

Anchor-based values are suggested here as an estimation of the clinical relevance of changes on the 15-item version of the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale based on the concept of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used hip-, knee-, foot-, and ankle-specific questionnaires: a systematic review.

Clinically relevant differences in COPD health status: systematic review and triangulation

MCIDs for deterioration were scarce, which highlights the need for more research, and triangulated thresholds for minimal clinically relevant improvements are −2.54, −0.43 and −7.43.
...

31 References

MCID — The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Assigns Significance to Outcome Effects

  • F. Angst
  • Medicine
    The Journal of Rheumatology
  • 2016
The dimension of an effect’s importance and significance, which includes the patient's subjective perception of pain and function, reaches a higher sphere because it is closer to the central subject of interest in medicine, the patient.

Minimal Important Difference Thresholds and the Standard Error of Measurement: Is There a Connection?

  • K. Wyrwich
  • Medicine, Psychology
    Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics
  • 2004
Charting these change levels against their respective SEM–MID criteria provides insight and promise for linking SEM-based criteria to MCID standards for other HRQOL and health status measures.

Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods.

Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status

It is concluded that effect sizes are an important tool that will facilitate the use and interpretation of health status measures in clinical research in arthritis and other chronic diseases.

Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements. An illustration in rheumatology.

To estimate when a difference in disability symptoms is sufficiently large to be important to individual patients, the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire was applied to assess the functional status of individuals.

A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods

  • M. King
  • Medicine
    Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research
  • 2011
There is no universal MID, despite the appeal of the notion, and for a particular patient-reported outcome instrument or scale, the MID is not an immutable characteristic, but may vary by population and context.

Examining the Minimal Important Difference of Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Model Using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score

Provided the anchor question is relevant to the patient-reported outcome and baseline status is considered, the anchor does not appear to influence the MID for improvement or worsening when using some anchor-based methods.