TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes
AU - Wang, Yuting
AU - Devji, Tahira
AU - Qasim, Anila
AU - Hao, Qiukui
AU - Wong, Vanessa
AU - Bhatt, Meha
AU - Prasad, Manya
AU - Wang, Ying
AU - Noori, Atefeh
AU - Xiao, Yingqi
AU - Ghadimi, Maryam
AU - Lozano, Luis Enrique Colunga
AU - Phillips, Mark R.
AU - Carrasco-Labra, Alonso
AU - King, Madeleine
AU - Terluin, Berend
AU - Terwee, Caroline B.
AU - Walsh, Michael
AU - Furukawa, Toshi A.
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.
N1 - Funding Information: Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Minimal important difference
KW - Patient-reported outcome measure
KW - systematic survey
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85120879937&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.028
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.028
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34752937
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 142
SP - 144
EP - 151
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -