ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2022
Methodological approach for determining the Minimal Important Difference and Minimal Important Change scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-HN43) exemplified by the Swallowing scale.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Responsiveness and clinical utility of patient-reported outcome instruments in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Reliability of the electronic patient reported outcome measures for assessing xerostomia, dysphagia and quality of life in Spanish patients with head and neck cancer: a randomised crossover design.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Trial
- Quality of Life before and after Radiotherapy in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer Patients Measured Using an Updated Head-Neck Specific EORTC QLQ-H&N43 at a Rural Tertiary Cancer Care Center.South Asian journal of cancer · 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
- Transoral Laser or Robotic Surgery Outcomes for Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: Secondary Analysis of the PATHOS Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2024Article
- Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Brief Fatigue Inventory for brain or CNS cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Article
- Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- [Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck cancer treatment: relevance, challenges, and benefit].HNO · 2023Review
- Serious Long-Term Effects of Head and Neck Cancer from the Survivors' Point of View.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to explore what methods should be used to determine the minimal important difference (MID) and minimal important change (MIC) in scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module, the EORTC QLQ-HN43.
methodsIn an international multi-centre study, patients with head and neck cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-HN43 before the onset of treatment (t1), three months after baseline (t2), and six months after baseline (t3). The methods explored for determining the MID were: (1) group comparisons based on performance status; (2) 0.5 and 0.3 standard deviation and standard error of the mean. The methods examined for the MIC were patients' subjective change ratings and receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves, predictive modelling, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean. The EORTC QLQ-HN43 Swallowing scale was used to investigate these methods.
resultsFrom 28 hospitals in 18 countries, 503 patients participated. Correlations with the performance status were |r|< 0.4 in 17 out of 19 scales; hence, performance status was regarded as an unsuitable anchor. The ROC approach yielded an implausible MIC and was also discarded. The remaining approaches worked well and delivered MID values ranging from 10 to 14; the MIC for deterioration ranged from 8 to 16 and the MIC for improvement from - 3 to - 14.
conclusionsFor determining MIDs of the remaining scales of the EORTC QLQ-HN43, we will omit comparisons of groups based on the Karnofsky Performance Score. Other external anchors are needed instead. Distribution-based methods worked well and will be applied as a starting strategy for analyses. For the calculation of MICs, subjective change ratings, predictive modelling, and standard-deviation based approaches are suitable methods whereas ROC analyses seem to be inappropriate.
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.