ArticleScientific reports2026
Exploring multiple minimal clinically important differences for the esophageal cancer scale QLICP-ES (V2.0) based on anchor-based and distribution-based methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an important phrase with big appeal in the interpretation of quality of life (QOL), and a bridge between statistical inference and clinical implication. This study aimed to explore multiple MCIDs of the QLICP-ES(V2.0), an esophageal cancer scale in Quality of Life Instruments system for Cancer Patients. The MCID were established by anchor-based and distribution-based methods. The item Q29 in EORTC QLQ-C30 was selected as an anchor, and Standard A (improves one level after treatment) and standard B (improves at least one level after treatment) were used to define effects in the anchor-based method, whereas methods of effect size (ES), standard error of measurement (SEM), and reliable change index (RCI) were used in the distribution-based method. A total of 232 esophageal cancer patients completed the QLICP-ES (V2.0) assessment. Under criterion A, 102 patients were included and the MCID values for the physical, psychological, social, common symptoms and side effects domains, the general module, the specific module, and the overall score were 15.1, 4.4, 3.1, 6.7, 4.8, 8.5, and 6.0, respectively. Under criterion B, 165 patients were included and the MCID values for the aforementioned domains and overall score were 19.3, 4.2, 4.8, 7.7, 6.5, 9.5, and 7.5, respectively. The MCID values using three approaches of effect size, standard error of measurement and reliable change index were ranged from 1.1 to 13.3. Although the threshold values of anchor-based method and 1.96SEM were recommended to establish the MCID of QLICP-ES(V2.0) in patients with ES, several MCID values have been presented by different methods and standards so that users may select according to different situations.
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.