Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30288411›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

How Do Psychiatrists Apply the Minimum Clinically Important Difference to Assess Patient Responses to Treatment?

Alan J McMichael, Jonathan J Rolison, Marco Boeri, Joseph P M Kane, Francis A O'Neill, Frank Kee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Alan J McMichaelCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK (AJM, FAO, FK).
Jonathan J RolisonCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK (AJM, FAO, FK).
Marco BoeriCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK (AJM, FAO, FK).
Joseph P M KaneCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK (AJM, FAO, FK).
Francis A O'NeillCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK (AJM, FAO, FK).
Frank KeeCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK (AJM, FAO, FK).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Symptom report scales are used in clinical practice to monitor patient outcomes. Using them permits the definition of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) beyond which a patient may be judged as having responded to treatment. Despite recommendations that clinicians routinely use MCIDs in clinical practice, statisticians disagree about how MCIDs should be used to evaluate individual patient outcomes and responses to treatment. To address this issue, we asked how clinicians actually use MCIDs to evaluate patient outcomes in response to treatment. Sixty-eight psychiatrists made judgments about whether hypothetical patients had responded to treatment based on their pre- and posttreatment change scores on the widely used Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Psychiatrists were provided with the scale's MCID on which to base their judgments. Our secondary objective was to assess whether knowledge of the patient's genotype influenced psychiatrists' responder judgments. Thus, psychiatrists were also informed of whether patients possessed a genotype indicating hyperresponsiveness to treatment. While many psychiatrists appropriately used the MCID, others accepted a far lower posttreatment change as indicative of a response to treatment. When psychiatrists accepted a lower posttreatment change than the MCID, they were less confident in such judgments compared to when a patient's posttreatment change exceeded the scale's MCID. Psychiatrists were also less likely to identify patients as responders to treatment if they possessed a hyperresponsiveness genotype. Clinicians should recognize that when judging patient responses to treatment, they often tolerate lower response thresholds than warranted. At least some conflate their judgments with information, such as the patient's genotype, that is irrelevant to a post hoc response-to-treatment assessment. Consequently, clinicians may be at risk of persisting with treatments that have failed to demonstrate patient benefits.

Indexed as

clinical practice guidelinesmanaged carepatient decision makingquality of care

Identifiers

PMID30288411
PMCPMC6124922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.