Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review

Abstract

BackgroundInterpretation of differences or changes in patient-reported outcome scores should not only consider statistical significance, but also clinical relevance. Accordingly, accurate determination of the minimally important difference (MID) is crucial to assess the effectiveness of health care interventions, as well as for sample size calculation. Several methods have been proposed to determine the MID. Our aim was to review the statistical methods used to determine MID in patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires in cancer patients, focusing on the distribution- and anchor-based approaches and to present the variability of criteria used as well as possible limitations.MethodsWe performed a systematic search using PubMed. We searched for all cancer studies related to MID determination on a PRO questionnaire. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted from eligible articles using a predefined data collection form. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and the involvement of a third reviewer.ResultsSixty-three articles were identified, of which 46 were retained for final analysis. Both distribution- and anchor-based approaches were used to assess the MID in 37 studies (80.4%). Different time points were used to apply the distribution-based method and the most frequently reported distribution was the 0.5 standard deviation at baseline. A change in a PRO external scale (N = 13, 30.2%) and performance status (N = 15, 34.9%) were the most frequently used anchors. The stability of the MID over time was rarely investigated and only 28.2% of studies used at least 3 assessment timepoints. The robustness of anchor-based MID was questionable in 37.2% of the studies where the minimal number of patients by anchor category was less than 20.ConclusionEfforts are needed to improve the quality of the methodology used for MID determination in PRO questionnaires used in oncology. In particular, increased attention to the sample size should be paid to guarantee reliable results. This could increase the use of these specific thresholds in future studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-018-1055-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Determining the minimal important difference of the Oral Health Impact Profile for Chronic Periodontitis

“…Third, the possible response shift (RS) effect is a particular concern. The occurrence of the RS effect may bias the results of change in PROs measures scores (Ousmen et al, 2016(Ousmen et al, , 2018. Further research on this topic would thus be needed to investigate how it impacts MID estimates.…”

Psychometric testing of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group—Neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) subscale in a longitudinal study of cancer patients treated with chemotherapy

“…An appropriate symptom assessment tool should have adequate sensitivity to change and responsiveness when used for assessing a change over time [14][15][16]. Sensitivity to change is defined as a measure's ability to detect change but this is not sufficient to determine if the change is clinically meaningful [14].…”

Thresholds for clinical importance were defined for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Computer Adaptive Testing Core—an adaptive measure of core quality of life domains in oncology clinical practice and research

“…Such thresholds improve the interpretability of scores from individual patients at a single time point, which is conceptually different from minimal important [15,16] used for evaluating score change over time or differences between patient groups.…”