Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25252608›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2015

Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change.

Jos Hendrikx, Jaap Fransen, Wietske Kievit, Piet L C M van Riel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Transitions in depression: if, how, and when depressive symptoms return during and after discontinuing antidepressants.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  4. The challenge of measuring intra-individual change in fatigue during cancer treatment.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jos HendrikxDepartment of Rheumatology (470), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Jos.Hendrikx@radboudumc.nl.
Jaap Fransen
Wietske Kievit
Piet L C M van Riel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn daily practice, physicians translate knowledge from clinical trials to practice, to improve health in individual patients. To help interpret meaningful change on disease outcome measures, the concept of minimal important change (MIC) was conceived. The objective of this study was to investigate whether MIC values are suited for individual patient monitoring.

methodsThree main elements of the MIC concept were evaluated: (1) MIC values for improvement and deterioration were determined, and the amount of misclassification present in quantifying minimal change was analyzed. (2) Discordance between change categories (improved, unchanged, deteriorated), defined by the MIC values, and patients' satisfaction with their health was inspected. (3) Discordance between change categories, defined by MIC values, and patients' willingness to alter therapy was inspected.

resultsMIC value analysis was based on 469 patients with RA seen in daily practice. The chance of falsely classifying health change of an individual patient was high (false-positive range 19-30 % and false-negative range 43-72 %). Of patients classified as improved, 24 % were not satisfied with their health and 69 % were not willing to change therapy. Of patients classified as deteriorated, 54 % were satisfied with their health and 57 % were not willing to change therapy.

conclusionsThe misclassification in the quantification of change and high proportions of discordance between change categories defined by MIC cutoff values and patients' satisfaction and willingness to alter therapy indicate that MIC values as such are not suited for individual patient monitoring.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeArthritis, RheumatoidFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prospective StudiesSelf ReportSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.