ReviewHealth and quality of life outcomes2018
Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review.
Review 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. It is linked to trial NCT06630650 (A Single Center Prospective Natural History and Outcome Measure Validation Study of Congenital Myasthenic Syndromes), which is not on this map. Cited by 66 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A Single Center Prospective Natural History and Outcome Measure Validation Study of Congenital Myasthenic Syndromes
Who cites it
66 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 154 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported outcomes for monitoring substance use treatment: A systematic review of single-item measures.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the clinical effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases using minimal clinically important difference: systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of pharmacal research · 2026Pooled it
- The minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
- Pearls and pitfalls of PROMIS clinically significant outcomes in orthopaedic surgery.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Pooled it
- The anchor design of anchor-based method to determine the minimal clinically important difference: a systematic review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Pooled it
- Reporting of PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials-a systematic review.Trials · 2023Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Economic and Quality-of-Life Research in Carcinoid Syndrome.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Pooled it
- An mHealth Intervention Promoting Physical Activity to Reduce Psychological Distress Among Workers: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Establishing the minimal important change for Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire for the prevention of opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer pain.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Trial
- A minimal clinically important difference for the sleep inertia visual analog scale in idiopathic hypersomnia.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Trial
- Establishing the minimum clinically important difference of the Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy Questionnaire.Epilepsia · 2024Trial
- Ascertainment of Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Diabetes Distress Scale-17: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Impacts of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the responses to the subsequent EQ-5D-5L.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Trial
- The effect of intravenous golimumab on health-related quality of life and work productivity in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis: results of the phase 3 GO-ALIVE trial.Clinical rheumatology · 2021Trial
- Estimation of minimally important differences and responder definitions for EORTC QLQ-MY20 scores in multiple myeloma patients.European journal of haematology · 2019Trial
- Article
- Unraveling assumptions about clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome data : A qualitative study on perspectives of different interest groups.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Calculating the minimally important difference for the FACT-E from esophageal cancer surgery to recovery using distribution-based methods.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025Article
- Interpretation of clinically meaningful change in cancer palliative care patients' quality of life: minimally important difference for EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Observational
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterpretation of differences or changes in patient-reported outcome scores should not only consider statistical significance, but also clinical relevance. Accordingly, accurate determination of the minimally important difference (MID) is crucial to assess the effectiveness of health care interventions, as well as for sample size calculation. Several methods have been proposed to determine the MID. Our aim was to review the statistical methods used to determine MID in patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires in cancer patients, focusing on the distribution- and anchor-based approaches and to present the variability of criteria used as well as possible limitations.
methodsWe performed a systematic search using PubMed. We searched for all cancer studies related to MID determination on a PRO questionnaire. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted from eligible articles using a predefined data collection form. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and the involvement of a third reviewer.
resultsSixty-three articles were identified, of which 46 were retained for final analysis. Both distribution- and anchor-based approaches were used to assess the MID in 37 studies (80.4%). Different time points were used to apply the distribution-based method and the most frequently reported distribution was the 0.5 standard deviation at baseline. A change in a PRO external scale (N = 13, 30.2%) and performance status (N = 15, 34.9%) were the most frequently used anchors. The stability of the MID over time was rarely investigated and only 28.2% of studies used at least 3 assessment timepoints. The robustness of anchor-based MID was questionable in 37.2% of the studies where the minimal number of patients by anchor category was less than 20.
conclusionEfforts are needed to improve the quality of the methodology used for MID determination in PRO questionnaires used in oncology. In particular, increased attention to the sample size should be paid to guarantee reliable results. This could increase the use of these specific thresholds in future studies.
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.