ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Minimum clinically important differences in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire: from a study of heart failure patients treated with integrated Chinese and Western medicine.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate the minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ), which targeted patients with heart failure treated with integrated Chinese and Western medicine, as a means of helping doctors and patients judge the effectiveness of intervention. Methods: A total of 194 patients with chronic heart failure were recruited from three general hospitals in Beijing. Anchor-based and distribution-based approaches were used to estimate MCID. The anchor was SF-36 item 2 (HT, Health Transition), and the calculation methods included the mean change method, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and linear regression model. For the distribution-based approaches, 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 standardized response mean (SRM) values and standard error of measurement (SEM) value of 1 were used. Results: The correlation coefficients of the MLHFQ scale information and HT were 0.346-0.583. Different MCIDs were obtained by the mean change method, ROC curve, and linear regression model. The minimum MCID in the physical domain, emotional domain, and total scores were 3.6, 2.0, and 7.4, respectively; the maximum estimates were 9.5, 2.5, and 13.0, respectively; and the average estimates were 5.7, 2.2, and 10.0, respectively. The average estimates were close to the result of the 0.5 SRM or 1 SEM. Conclusion: We established MCIDs in the MLHFQ using anchor-based and distribution-based approaches. It was recommended to round the average estimates of anchor-based approaches up to the nearest whole number for the MCIDs of the MLHFQ physical domain, emotional domain, and total scores. The results were 6.0, 2.0, and 10.0, respectively.
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.