SynthesisEvidence-based mental health2021
Mind the methods of determining minimal important differences: three critical issues to consider.
Synthesis in Evidence-based mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions for the management of long covid (post-covid condition): living systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Pooled it
- Estimating minimal, moderate, and marked clinically important differences for patient reported outcome measure in randomised controlled trial.Chinese medical journal · 2026Trial
- Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Trial
- Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for common outcome instruments in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture - analysis of the FISH randomised clinical trial data.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Trial
- Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Trial
- Caregiver Meaningful Score Differences and Meaningful Score Regions for the Observer-Reported Communication Ability Measure for Individuals with Angelman Syndrome.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2026Article
- Reply to comments on Jaju et al.: Quality of recovery following intraperitoneal bupivacaine with and without dexamethasone in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- Defining a minimal clinically important difference for the Vanderbilt ADHD Parent Rating Scale in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.BMC psychiatry · 2026Observational
- Quality of recovery following intraperitoneal bupivacaine with and without dexamethasone in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical medicine insights. Pediatrics · 2026Review
- Defining score interpretation thresholds for clinical outcome assessments: a review of terminology and reporting recommendations.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Review
- Anchor questions to improve patient-reported outcome measure interpretability in patients undergoing knee or hip arthroplasty - a mixed-methods content validity, construct validity, and reliability study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Rating certainty when the target threshold is the null and the point estimate is close to the null.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- A Consistent Lack of Consistency: Definitions, Evidentiary Expectations and Potential Use of Meaningful Change Data in Clinical Outcome Assessments Across Stakeholders. Results from a DIA Working Group Literature Review and Survey.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Review
- A Scoping Review of Minimal Important Change and Minimal Detectable Change of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Lower Extremity Scale in Patients with Stroke.Physical therapy research · 2025Review
- Revised minimal important difference values for the visual analogue scale and Foot Health Status Questionnaire when used for plantar heel pain.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2024Article
- Anchor-based minimal important difference values are often sensitive to the distribution of the change score.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Minimal clinically important change of knee flexion in people with knee osteoarthritis after non-surgical interventions using a meta-analytical approach.Systematic reviews · 2024Review
- Development and evaluation of a patient-reported outcome measure specific for Gaucher disease with or without neurological symptoms in Japan.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClinical trialists, meta-analysts and clinical guideline developers are increasingly using minimal important differences (MIDs) to enhance the interpretability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Here, we elucidate three critical issues of which MID users should be aware. Improved understanding of MID concepts and awareness of common pitfalls in methodology and reporting will better inform the application of MIDs in clinical research and decision-making.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review to inform the development of an inventory of anchor-based MID estimates for PROMs. We searched four electronic databases to identify primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adolescent or adult populations across all clinical areas. Our findings are based on information from 338 studies reporting 3389 MIDs for 358 PROMs published between 1989 and 2015.
resultsWe identified three key issues in the MID literature that demand attention. (1) The profusion of terms representing the MID concept adds unnecessary complexity to users' task in identifying relevant MIDs, requiring meticulous inspection of methodology to ensure estimates offered truly reflect the MID. (2) A multitude of diverse methods for MID estimation that will yield different estimates exist, and whether there are superior options remains unresolved. (3) There are serious issues of incomplete presentation and reporting of key aspects of the design, methodology and results of studies providing anchor-based MIDs, which threatens the optimal use of these estimates for interpretation of intervention effects on PROMs.
conclusionsAlthough the MID represents a powerful tool for enhancing the interpretability of PROMs, realising its full value will require improved understanding and reporting of its measurement fundamentals.
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.