ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
A weighted predictive modeling method for estimating thresholds of meaningful within-individual change for patient-reported outcomes.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individual-level prediction models of societal costs and health-related quality of life in pediatric cerebral palsy: a population-based study from Spain.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Weighted predictive modelling estimation of patient acceptable symptom state for forgotten joint score, Oxford hip score, and EuroQol health index 3 and 12 months after total hip arthroplasty in a United Kingdom cohort.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCalculating the threshold for meaningful within-individual change (MWIC) is essential for interpreting patient-reported outcomes (PRO). However, traditional methods of determining MWIC threshold yield varying estimates and lack a standardized approach. We aim to propose a novel method for more accurate MWIC threshold estimation.
methodsWe developed a weighted predictive modeling method. The weighting involved using the rank difference between PRO score change and the anchor of each individual. A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to compare the performance of the new method and that of existing state-of-the-art methods. Simulation parameters included distributions of PRO score changes, sample sizes, improvement proportions, and correlation strengths. Statistical performance was assessed using relative bias (rbias), coefficient of variation (CV), and relative root mean squared error (rRMSE).
resultsDistribution-based methods had the largest rbias and rRMSE among all methods. Existing anchor-based methods except for the Terluin 2022 method were biased when the correlation strength was weak or when the improvement proportion was not 50%. The Terluin 2022 method requires estimating an important reliability parameter, and this method had highest CV compared to other predictive modeling methods. The new weighted method demonstrated the smallest rRMSE across most simulation settings. It also maintained relatively high accuracy under weak correlation strength or imbalanced improvement proportion. Similar results were presented under normal or skewed distributions of PRO score changes.
conclusionThis novel method offers a simple and feasible alternative to existing predictive modeling methods for estimating MWIC threshold, which can facilitate the application of PRO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39969677What 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.