Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32499297›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020

Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study.

Tahira Devji, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Anila Qasim, Mark Phillips, Bradley C Johnston, Niveditha Devasenapathy, Dena Zeraatkar, Meha Bhatt, Xuejing Jin, Romina Brignardello-Petersen and 17 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 19 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

111 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Selecting the optimal MIC for five patient-reported outcome measures in patients with upper extremity injuries, using a systematic search and step-by-step decision tree.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A systematic review of minimum important changes for generic multi-attribute utility instruments and recommendations for their estimation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Assessing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy with patient reported outcome measures: a systematic review of measurement properties and considerations for future use.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. 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
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial

51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

27 authors.

Tahira DevjiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada devjits@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8414-7410
Alonso Carrasco-LabraDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Anila QasimDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Mark PhillipsDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Bradley C JohnstonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Niveditha DevasenapathyIndian Institute of Public Health, Public Health Foundation of India, Gujarat, India.
Dena ZeraatkarDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Meha BhattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Xuejing JinSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Romina Brignardello-PetersenDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Olivia UrquhartCenter for Evidence Based Dentistry, American Dental Association, Chicago, IL, USA.
Farid ForoutanDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Stefan SchandelmaierDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Hector Pardo-HernandezIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Sant Pau Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.
Robin Wm VernooijDepartment of Research, Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Hsiaomin HuangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Yamna RizwanDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Reed SiemieniukDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Lyubov LytvynDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Donald L PatrickDepartment of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Shanil EbrahimDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Toshi FurukawaDepartment of Health Promotion and Human Behaviour, School of Public Health, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Gihad NesrallahNephrology Program, Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Mohit BhandariDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument.

designInstrument development and reliability study. DATA SOURCES: Initial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument.

participantsWith the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates.

main outcome measuresCore credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined.

resultsThe credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors.

conclusionsResearchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresHealth Status IndicatorsHumansQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32499297
PMCPMC7270853

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.