Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39174866›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024

Effect of present state bias on minimal important change estimates: a simulation study.

Berend Terluin, Piper Fromy, Andrew Trigg, Caroline B Terwee, Jakob B Bjorner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Dutch Adult Strabismus-20 Questionnaire (Dutch-AS-20).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  2. Measurement properties of the USER-Participation Restriction subscale and PROMISQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Estimating the minimal important change of single-item measures using the adjusted predictive modeling method or the longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis method.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
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

5 authors.

Berend TerluinDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. b.terluin@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8944-5238
Piper FromySeeingTheta, 2 Chemin des Vaux, 49400, Saumur, France.
Andrew TriggMedical Affairs Statistics, Bayer Plc, Reading, UK.
Caroline B TerweeAmsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jakob B BjornerQualityMetric, Johnston, RI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe minimal important change (MIC) in a patient-reported outcome measure is often estimated using patient-reported transition ratings as anchor. However, transition ratings are often more heavily weighted by the follow-up state than by the baseline state, a phenomenon known as "present state bias" (PSB). It is unknown if and how PSB affects the estimation of MICs using various methods.

methodsWe simulated 3240 samples in which the true MIC was simulated as the mean of individual MICs, and PSB was created by basing transition ratings on a "weighted change", differentially weighting baseline and follow-up states. In each sample we estimated MICs based on the following methods: mean change (MC), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, predictive modeling (PM), adjusted predictive modeling (APM), longitudinal item response theory (LIRT), and longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis (LCFA). The latter two MICs were estimated with and without constraints on the transition item slope parameters (LIRT) or factor loadings (LCFA).

resultsPSB did not affect MIC estimates based on MC, ROC, and PM but these methods were biased by other factors. PSB caused imprecision in the MIC estimates based on APM, LIRT and LCFA with constraints, if the degree of PSB was substantial. However, the unconstrained LIRT- and LCFA-based MICs recovered the true MIC without bias and with high precision, independent of the degree of PSB.

conclusionWe recommend the unconstrained LIRT- and LCFA-based MIC methods to estimate anchor-based MICs, irrespective of the degree of PSB. The APM-method is a feasible alternative if PSB is limited.

Indexed as

BiasComputer SimulationFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansMinimal Clinically Important DifferencePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsQuality of LifeROC CurveMeaningful change thresholdMinimal important changePatient-reported outcome measurePresent state biasTransition ratings

Identifiers

PMID39174866
PMCPMC11541299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.