ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
The Meaning and Reliability of Minimal Important Differences (MIDs) for Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures (ClinROMs) in Dermatology-A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Application of patient-reported outcome instruments in nonsurgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2026Article
- Defining score interpretation thresholds for clinical outcome assessments: a review of terminology and reporting recommendations.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Review
- A Quality Analysis of the Measurement Properties of the Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures for Vitiligo and of the Studies Assessing Them: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- 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
- Precision in treatment evaluation: importance of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of outcome measures for autoimmune blistering diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Scoring Criteria for Autoimmune Bullous Diseases: Utility, Merits, and Demerits.Indian dermatology online journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinROMs) are frequently used in clinical trials and daily practice to evaluate the disease status and evolution of skin disorders. The minimal important difference (MID) represents the smallest difference that decreases the disease impact enough to make a treatment change worthwhile for patients. As no clear guidance exists on the preferred method to calculate MIDs for ClinROMs, we evaluated how the published values for different skin disorders should be interpreted. Methods: A systematic search was performed for MIDs of ClinROMs that focus on skin disorders and/or symptoms. The results of the questions in the credibility instrument for MIDs of Devji et al., 2020 were analyzed to gain insights into the meaning of these MIDs. Results: 29 MIDs were identified. The most common skin diseases were atopic dermatitis/eczema, followed by bullous disorders and psoriasis. A minimal important difference from the patients’ perspective was determined in 31% of the cases. However, in 41.4% of the cases, it concerned a substantial rather than a minimal difference in disease severity rated by physicians. Over half (55.1%) of the studies contained an inadequate number of patients (n < 150). MID values increased substantially in patients with severe compared to mild disease. Conclusions: MIDs of ClinROMs for skin disorders should be carefully interpreted due to the substantial differences in methodology between the studies. There is an urgent need for a consensus method to report reliable MIDs. Otherwise, this lack of uniformity could not only affect the design and conclusion of clinical trials but also skew treatment decisions.
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.