Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39384724›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025

Conceptualizing meaningful between-group difference in change over time: a demonstration of possible viewpoints.

Andrew Trigg, Nicolai D Ayasse, Cheryl D Coon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Interpreting the meaningfulness of treatment effects estimated in parallel groups designs: comment on Trigg et al.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  5. Appropriate use of meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) thresholds in Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Andrew TriggMedical Affairs Statistics, Bayer plc, Reading, UK. andrew.trigg@bayer.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1613-8042
Nicolai D AyasseClinical Outcome Assessment Program, Critical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0890-7742
Cheryl D CoonClinical Outcome Assessment Program, Critical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1585-2786

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDetermining if group-level differences in health outcomes are meaningful has recently been neglected in favour of determining if individuals have experienced a meaningful change. We explore interpretation of a meaningful between-group difference (MBGD) in clinical outcome assessment scores, primarily in the context of randomized clinical trials.

methodsWe constructed a series of possible 'viewpoints' on how to conceptualize MBGD thresholds. Each viewpoint is discussed critically in terms of potential advantages and disadvantages, with simulated data to facilitate their consideration.

resultsFive viewpoints are presented and discussed. The first considers whether thresholds for meaningful within-individual change over time can be equally applied at the group-level, which is shown to be untenable. Viewpoints 2-4 consider what would have to be observed in treatment groups to conclude a meaningful between-group difference has occurred, framed in terms of the proportion of patients perceiving that they had meaningfully improved. The final viewpoint considers an alternative framework where stakeholders are directly questioned on the meaningfulness of varying magnitudes of between-group differences. The choice of a single threshold versus general interpretative guidelines is discussed.

conclusionThere does not appear to be a single method with clear face validity for determining MBGD thresholds. Additionally, the notion that such thresholds can be purely data-driven is challenged, where a degree of subjective stakeholder judgement is likely required. Areas for future research are proposed, to move towards robust method development.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCOAMCIDMeaningful changeMIDPRO

Identifiers

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.