Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39279768›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2024

Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Brief Fatigue Inventory for brain or CNS cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

Heather J Gunn, Isabella Zaniletti, William G Breen, Todd Leavitt, Aaron Bogan, Anita Mahajan, Paul D Brown, Elizabeth Yan, Sujay A Vora, Kenneth W Merrell and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. CanRestoreFunction: Cancer-related fatigue management eHealth intervention- a pilot pragmatic randomized-control trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Integrating English and Chinese evidence on acupuncture and moxibustion for cancer-related fatigue (CRF): a decade of research and clinical recommendations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

17 authors.

Heather J GunnDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Isabella ZanilettiIZ Statistics LLC, Tampa, Florida, USA.
William G BreenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Todd LeavittCytel, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Aaron BoganDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Anita MahajanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Paul D BrownDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Elizabeth YanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Sujay A VoraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Kenneth W MerrellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Jonathan B AshmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Jennifer L PetersonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
James L LeenstraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Northfield, Minnesota, USA.
Zachary C WilsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA.
Brady S LaughlinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Nadia N LaackDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Todd A DeWeesDepartment of Computational and Quantitative Medicine, City of Hope, Duarte, California, USA.

Funding

Women's Cancer ProgramP30CA015083 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI AKHILESH PANDEY · 1985 to 2026
$151.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) quantify the clinical relevance of quality of life results at the individual patient and group level. The aim of this study was to estimate the MCID for the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) and the Worst and Usual Fatigue items in patients with brain or CNS cancer undergoing curative radiotherapy. Methods: Data from a multi-site prospective registry was used. The MCID was calculated using distribution-based and anchor-based approaches. For the anchor-based approach, the fatigue item from the PROMIS-10 served as the anchor to determine if a patient improved, deteriorated, or had no change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT). We compared the unadjusted means on the BFI for the 3 groups to calculate the MCID. For the distribution-based approaches, we calculated the MCID as 0.5 SD of the scores and as 1.96 times the standard error of measurement. Results: Three-hundred and fifty nine patients with brain or CNS tumors undergoing curative radiotherapy filled out the 9-item BFI at baseline and EOT. The MCID for the BFI was 1.33 (ranging from 0.99 to 1.70 across the approaches), 1.51 (ranging from 1.16 to 2.02) and 1.76 (ranging from 1.38 to 2.14) for the usual and worst fatigue items, respectively. Conclusions: This study provides the MCID ranges for the BFI and Worst and Usual fatigue items, which will allow clinically meaningful conclusions to be drawn from BFI scores. These results can be used to select optimal treatments for patients with brain or CNS cancer or to interpret BFI scores from clinical trials.

Indexed as

brain tumorBrief Fatigue Inventoryfatigueminimal clinically important differenceminimal important change

Identifiers

PMID39279768
PMCPMC11398933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.