Determining Clinically Important Differences in Health Status Measures

Abstract

The objective of this article was to describe and illustrate a comprehensive approach for estimating clinically important differences (CIDs) in health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL). A literature review and pilot study were conducted to determine whether effect size-based benchmarks are consistent with CIDs obtained from other approaches. CIDs may be estimated based primarily upon effect sizes, supplemented by more traditional anchor-based methods of benchmarking (i.e. direct, cross-sectional or longitudinal approaches). A literature review of articles discussing CIDs provided comparative data on effect sizes for various chronic conditions. A pilot study was then conducted to estimate the minimum CID of the Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark II, and to compare the observed between-group differences observed in a recent randomised trial of an acute stroke intervention with this benchmark. The use of standardised effect size benchmarks has a number of advantages-for example, effect sizes are efficient, widely accepted outside HR-QOL, and have well accepted benchmarks based upon external anchors. In addition, our literature review and pilot study suggest that effect size-based CID benchmarks are similar to those which would be obtained using more traditional methods. For most HR-QOL instruments, we do not know the changes in score which constitute CIDs of various magnitudes. This makes interpretation of HR-QOL results from clinical trials difficult, and having a benchmarking process which is relatively straightforward would be highly desirable.

Changes in working conditions and physical health functioning among midlife and ageing employees

“…Such evidence is important for the prevention of loss of functioning among ageing employees and offers insights into potentially modifiable working conditions. Although the observed group differences in the means (table 2) and mean changes (table 3) of physical health functioning scores were fairly small, many of them were close to >3 points, which has been Mänty et al suggested as a clinically important difference (26). Our results are also in line with a previous study in this cohort which showed that adverse changes in working conditions were associated with an increased risk and favorable changes with a decreased risk of sickness absence (17).…”

Individual cognitive stimulation therapy for dementia: a clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

“…For the QCPR, an estimate of the points equivalent of the SMD was obtained by taking the baseline SD for the QCPR and multiplying by the effect size 53 of 0.35 set for the study. This gave a difference of 3.1.…”

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ‘PhysioDirect’ telephone assessment and advice services for physiotherapy

“…At the time of planning the study, previous studies in a range of populations and conditions had suggested that a minimum clinically important difference on the SF-36v2 PCS was about 4 points [0.4 standard deviation (SD)], [74][75][76][77] although the latest version of the SF-36v2 manual now suggests that 'a minimum important difference of 2-3 points is reasonable'. 78 In this study, a difference of no greater than 2 points was conservatively specified as demonstrating equivalence.…”