Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33892086›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2021

Effective dose 50 method as the minimal clinically important difference: Evidence from depression trials.

Clarissa Bauer-Staeb, Daphne-Zacharenia Kounali, Nicky J Welton, Emma Griffith, Nicola J Wiles, Glyn Lewis, Julian J Faraway, Katherine S Button

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07222696 (Pilot Randomized Trial of Health Coaching for People With Rheumatoid Arthritis to Improve Mental Well-Being), which is not on this map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT07222696 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Pilot Randomized Trial of Health Coaching for People With Rheumatoid Arthritis to Improve Mental Well-Being

TypeinterventionalSponsorWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversityRan2026 to 2030Enrolled250ConditionsRheumatoid Arthritis (RAArmsPeer Coach, Healthy Horizons
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Clarissa Bauer-StaebDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Daphne-Zacharenia KounaliBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Nicky J WeltonBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Emma GriffithDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom; Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, Bath, United Kingdom.
Nicola J WilesBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Glyn LewisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Julian J FarawayDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Katherine S ButtonDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom. Electronic address: k.s.button@bath.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0610-10048Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/M005615/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePrevious research on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for depression and anxiety is based on population averages. The present study aimed to identify the MCID across the spectrum of baseline severity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: The present analysis used secondary data from 2 randomized controlled trials for depression (n = 1,122) to calibrate the Global Rating of Change with the PHQ-9 and GAD-7. The MCID was defined as a change in scores corresponding to a 50% probability of patients "feeling better", given their baseline severity, referred to as Effective Dose 50 (ED50).

resultsMCID estimates depended on baseline severity and ranged from no change for very mild up to 14 points (52%) on the PHQ-9 and up to 10 points (48%) on the GAD-7 for very high severity. The average MCID estimates were 3.7 points (23%) and 3.3 (28%) for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 respectively.

conclusionThe ED50 method generates MCID estimates across the spectrum of baseline severity, offering greater precision but at the cost of greater complexity relative to population average estimates. This has important implications for evaluations of treatments and clinical practice where users can use these results to tailor the MCID to specific populations according to baseline severities.

Indexed as

Minimal Clinically Important DifferenceAdultAnxietyDepressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSeverity of Illness IndexClinically Meaningful ChangeGAD-7MCIDMinimal Clinically Important DifferencePHQ-9Primary Care

Identifiers

PMID33892086
PMCPMC8485844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.