Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 27 September 2006
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
- Vol. 4 (1), 1-70
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-70
Abstract
Patient reported outcomes provide the patient's perspective on the effectiveness of treatment. The draft Food and Drug Administration guidance on patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims raises a number of method and measurement issues that require further clarification, including methods of determining responsiveness and minimal important differences. For clinical trials, instruments need to be based on a clear conceptual framework, have evidence supporting content validity and acceptable psychometric qualities. The measures must also have evidence documenting responsiveness and interpretation guidelines (i.e., minimal important difference) to be most useful as effectiveness endpoints in clinical trials. The recommended approach is to estimate the minimal important difference based on several anchor-based methods, with relevant clinical or patient-based indicators, and to examine various distribution-based estimates (i.e., effect size, standardized response mean, standard error of measurement) as supportive information, and then to triangulate on a single value or small range of values for the MID. Confidence in a specific MID value evolves over time and is confirmed by additional research evidence, including clinical trial experience. The MID may vary by population and context, and no one MID will be valid for all study applications involving a PRO instrument. Responsiveness and MID must be demonstrated and documented for the particular study population, and these measurement characteristics are needed for PRO labeling and promotional claims.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact of omalizumab on quality-of-life outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthmaAnnals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 2006
- Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approachesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005
- Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labelsControlled Clinical Trials, 2004
- Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of lifeJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2003
- Assessing Meaningful Change in Quality of Life Over Time: A Users' Guide for CliniciansMayo Clinic Proceedings, 2002
- Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status MeasuresMayo Clinic Proceedings, 2002
- Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United StatesQuality of Life Research, 2000
- Recommendations for Evaluating the Validity of Quality of Life Claims for Labeling and PromotionValue in Health, 1999
- Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health StatusMedical Care, 1989
- Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instrumentsJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987