ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2018
Assessing health status over time: impact of recall period and anchor question on the minimal clinically important difference of copd health status tools.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of Quality-of-Life Improvement at Different Minimum Clinically Important Difference Values in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease after Climatic Rehabilitation Treatment.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Determining the Minimal Important Difference for the Wound-QoL Questionnaire.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Validity of EQ-5D utility index and minimal clinically important difference estimation among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2020Article
- Commentary: "Healthcare Professionals' Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease" by Dankers M et al. inFrontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- An investigation of methods to improve recall for the patient-reported outcome measurement in COPD patients: a pilot randomised control trial and feasibility study protocol.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
- Brazilian version of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, administered by interview: reliability and validity measurement properties.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e TisilogiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) assesses what change on a measurement tool can be considered minimal clinically relevant. Although the recall period can influence questionnaire scores, it is unclear if it influences the MCID. This study is the first to examine longitudinally the impact of the recall period of an anchor question and its design on the MCID of COPD health status tools using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).
methodsModerate to very severe COPD patients without respiratory co-morbidities were recruited during 3-week Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR). CAT, CCQ and SGRQ were completed at baseline, discharge, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A 15-point Global Rating of Change scale (GRC) was completed at each follow-up. A five-point GRC was used as second anchor at 12 months. Mean change scores of a subset of patients indicating a minimal improvement on each of the anchor questions were considered the MCID. The MCID estimates over different time periods were compared with one another by evaluating the degree of overlap of Confidence Intervals (CI) adjusted for dependency.
resultsIn total 451 patients were included (57.9 ± 6.6 years, 65% male, 50/39/11% GOLD II/III/IV), of which 309 completed follow-up. Baseline health status scores were 20.2 ± 7.3 (CAT), 2.9 ± 1.2 (CCQ) and 50.7 ± 17.3 (SGRQ). MCID estimates for improvement ranged - 3.1 to - 1.4 for CAT, - 0.6 to - 0.3 for CCQ, and - 10.3 to - 7.6 for SGRQ. Absolute higher - though not significant - MCIDs were observed for CAT and CCQ directly after PR. Significantly absolute lower MCID estimates were observed for CAT (difference - 1.4: CI -2.3 to - 0.5) and CCQ (difference - 0.2: CI -0.3 to -0.1) using a five-point GRC.
conclusionsThe recall period of a 15-point anchor question seemed to have limited impact on the MCID for improvement of CAT, CCQ and SGRQ during PR; although a 3-week MCID estimate directly after PR might lead to absolute higher values. However, the design of the anchor question was likely to influence the MCID of CAT and CCQ.
trial registrationRIMTCORE trial # DRKS00004609 and #12107 (Ethik-Kommission der Bayerischen Landesärztekammer).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.