ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2025
Calculating the minimally important difference for the FACT-E from esophageal cancer surgery to recovery using distribution-based methods.
Article in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 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.
- Efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation and acupressure in alleviating chemotherapy-related adverse reactions in female patients with breast cancer: a randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Trial
- Exploring multiple minimal clinically important differences for the esophageal cancer scale QLICP-ES (V2.0) based on anchor-based and distribution-based methods.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A challenge with patient-reported outcomes is interpreting changes in scores. The minimally important difference (MID) represents the smallest meaningful change in a score. This study's objective is to calculate the MID for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal (FACT-E) and examine whether the MID changes over time from treatment through recovery. This retrospective longitudinal study analyzed data from the McGill University Esophageal and Gastric Data- and Bio-Bank. Participants were adults who underwent esophageal cancer surgery and completed the FACT-E pre-surgery and at least once post-surgery. MIDs were calculated using two distribution-based approaches: standard deviation and standard error of measurement. MIDs were calculated for the five FACT-E domains and total score at multiple time points. The study included 676 participants. MIDs varied by domain and calculation method. The MIDs ranged from 1 to 3 points for most domains, 2 to 5 points for the esophagus cancer subscale, and 4 to 9 points for the FACT-E total score. The MIDs changed over time, with the greatest fluctuations found in the esophagus cancer subscale. This study provides the first estimates of MIDs for the FACT-E, offering clinicians and researchers guidance for interpreting meaningful changes in scores. The range of MIDs can help identify potentially important changes in patient-reported symptoms and quality of life over time. Further studies using additional methods to calculate MIDs are warranted to refine these estimates.
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.