ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2019
Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Selection of patient-reported outcome measures in pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials: a systematic review, meta-analysis and health-related quality of life framework.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of mind-body exercise in chronic cardiopulmonary dyspnoea patients-a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Determining the safety and effectiveness of Tai Chi: a critical overview of 210 systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Does tai chi improve psychological well-being and quality of life in patients with cardiovascular disease and/or cardiovascular risk factors? A systematic review.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Pooled it
- A comprehensive individual patient data meta-analysis of the effects of cardiac contractility modulation on functional capacity and heart failure-related quality of life.ESC heart failure · 2020Pooled it
- Oxygen use in chronic heart failure to relieve breathlessness: A systematic review.Heart failure reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Changes in Myocardial Light Chain Amyloid Burden After Plasma Cell Therapy.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2025Trial
- Development and implementation of a HAPA-based exercise rehabilitation program for patients with chronic heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of Endurance and Resistance Training on Cardiovascular Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Structured Narrative Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
- Beyond prediction intervals in meta-analysis: reporting the expected proportion of comparable studies with clinically relevant benefit or harm.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Health-related quality of life is an independent predictor of mortality and hospitalisations in transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy: a prospective cohort study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Effectiveness and safety of Liriope Tuber (Liriopis seu Ophiopogonis Tuber, Maidong) included traditional herbal medicine for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and network analysis.Integrative medicine research · 2024Review
- Rationale and design of the PACE HFpEF trial: Physiologic accelerated pacing as a holistic treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Heart rhythm O2 · 2024Article
- Mixed-methods evaluation of a multifaceted heart failure intervention in general practice: the OSCAR-HF pilot study.ESC heart failure · 2023Observational
- Factors related to early readmissions after acute heart failure: a nested case-control study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Observational
- Minimum clinically important differences in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire: from a study of heart failure patients treated with integrated Chinese and Western medicine.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) is one of the most widely used health-related quality of life questionnaires for patients with heart failure (HF). The objective of the present study was to explore the responsiveness of the MLHFQ by estimating the minimal detectable change (MDC) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in Spain.
methodsPatients hospitalized for HF in the participating hospitals completed the MLHFQ at baseline and 6 months, plus anchor questions at 6 months. To study responsiveness, patients were classified as having "improved", remained "the same" or "worsened", using anchor questions. We used the standardized effect size (SES), and standardized response mean (SRM) to measure the magnitude of the changes scores and calculate the MDC and MCID.
resultsOverall, 1211 patients completed the baseline and follow-up questionnaires 6 months after discharge. The mean changes in all MLHFQ domains followed a trend (P < 0.0001) with larger gains in quality of life among patients classified as "improved", smaller gains among those classified as "the same", and losses among those classified as "worsened". The SES and SRM responsiveness parameters in the "improved" group were ≥ 0.80 on nearly all scales. Among patients classified as "worsened", effect sizes were < 0.40, while among patients classified as "the same", the values ranged from 0.24 to 0.52. The MDC ranged from 7.27 to 16.96. The MCID based on patients whose response to the anchor question was "somewhat better", ranged from 3.59 to 19.14 points.
conclusionsAll of these results suggest that all domains of the MLHFQ have a good sensitivity to change in the population studied.
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.