Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

27 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Minimally important differences and severity thresholds are estimated for the PROMIS depression scales from three randomized clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) scales are increasingly being used to measure symptoms in research and practice. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimally important difference (MID) and severity thresholds (cut-points) for the four fixed-length PROMIS depression scales.

Methods

The study sample was adult participants in three randomized clinical trials (N=651). MID was estimated using multiple distribution- and anchor-based approaches including assessing correspondence between Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and PROMIS depression scores.

Results

The best MID estimate was a PROMIS depression T-score of 3.5 points with most methods producing an MID in the 3 to 4 point range across all three samples. MID estimates were similar for all four PROMIS scales. A PHQ-9 1-point change equated to a PROMIS 1.25-point T-score change. PROMIS T-scores of 55, 60, 65, and 70 appeared to be reasonable thresholds for mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively.

Limitations

The study sample was predominantly male veterans with either chronic pain (2 trials) or previous stroke (1 trial). The severity of depression was mild to moderate.

Conclusion

A T-score of 3 to 4 points is a reasonable MID for PROMIS depression scales and can be used to assess treatment effects in both practice and research as well to calculate sample sizes for clinical trials. Severity cut-points can help interpret the meaning of scores and action thresholds for treatment decisions.

SUBMITTER: Kroenke K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7103541 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Estimating minimally important differences for the PROMIS pain interference scales: results from 3 randomized clinical trials.

Project description:Minimally important difference (MID) refers to the smallest meaningful difference that carries implications for patient care. Minimally important differences are necessary to help interpret patient-reported pain outcomes in research and clinical practice. The PROMIS pain interference scales were validated across diverse samples; however, more information about their MIDs could improve their interpretability. The purpose of this study was to estimate MIDs for 4 fixed-length PROMIS pain interference scales, including the 6-item Pain Short Form and the 4-, 6-, and 8-item pain interference scales used in the PROMIS profile instruments. Data were analyzed from 3 randomized controlled trials (N = 759). The 3 samples, respectively, consisted of patients with chronic low back pain (n = 261), chronic back pain or hip/knee osteoarthritis pain (n = 240), and a history of stroke (n = 258). For each sample, anchor- and distribution-based approaches were used to estimate MIDs. Standard error of measurement and effect sizes were used as distribution-based MID estimates. Anchor-based MID estimates were established by mapping PROMIS pain interference scores onto established anchor measures, including the Brief Pain Inventory, and retrospective and prospective global ratings of change. The distribution- and anchor-based MID estimates showed convergence. For the pain samples, MID estimates ranged from 2 to 3 T-score points. For the nonpain sample, MID estimates ranged from 3.5 to 4.5 T-score points. The MID estimates were comparable across the 4 fixed-length scales. These MIDs can be used to evaluate treatment effects in research and clinical care and to calculate estimates for powering clinical trials.

| S-EPMC5860950 | biostudies-literature

Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients.

Project description:ObjectiveWe combined anchor- and distribution-based methods to establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients.Study design and settingParticipants completed 6 PROMIS-Cancer scales and 23 anchor measures at an initial (n=101) assessment and a follow-up (n=88) assessment 6-12 weeks later. Three a priori criteria were used to identify usable cross-sectional and longitudinal anchor-based MID estimates. The mean standard error of measurement was also computed for each scale. The focus of the analysis was on item response theory-based MIDs estimated on a T-score scale. Raw score MIDs were estimated for comparison purposes.ResultsMany cross-sectional (64%) and longitudinal (73%) T-score anchor-based MID estimates were excluded because they did not meet a priori criteria. The following are the recommended T-score MID ranges: 17-item Fatigue (2.5-4.5), 7-item Fatigue (3.0-5.0), 10-item Pain Interference (4.0-6.0), 10-item Physical Functioning (4.0-6.0), 9-item Emotional Distress-Anxiety (3.0-4.5), and 10-item Emotional Distress-Depression (3.0-4.5). Effect sizes corresponding to these MIDs averaged between 0.40 and 0.63.ConclusionsThis study is the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures. Studies are currently being conducted to confirm these MIDs in other patient populations and to determine whether these MIDs vary by patients' level of functioning.

| S-EPMC3076200 | biostudies-literature

Responsiveness of PROMIS and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) Depression Scales in three clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe PROMIS depression scales are reliable and valid measures that have extensive normative data in general population samples. However, less is known about how responsive they are to detect change in clinical settings and how their responsiveness compares to legacy measures. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the responsiveness of the PROMIS and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) depression scales in three separate samples.MethodsWe used data from three clinical trials (two in patients with chronic pain and one in stroke survivors) totaling 651 participants. At both baseline and follow-up, participants completed four PROMIS depression fixed-length scales as well as legacy measures: Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item and 2-item scales (PHQ-9 and PHQ-2) and the SF-36 Mental Health scale. We measured global ratings of depression change, both prospectively and retrospectively, as anchors to classify patients as improved, unchanged, or worsened. Responsiveness was assessed with standardized response means, statistical tests comparing change groups, and area-under-curve analysis.ResultsThe PROMIS depression and legacy scales had generally comparable responsiveness. Moreover, the four PROMIS depression scales of varying lengths were similarly responsive. In general, measures performed better in detecting depression improvement than depression worsening. For all measures, responsiveness varied based on the study sample and on whether depression improved or worsened.ConclusionsBoth PROMIS and PHQ depression scales are brief public domain measures that are responsive (i.e., sensitive to change) and thus appropriate as outcome measures in research as well as for monitoring treatment in clinical practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01236521, NCT01583985, NCT01507688.

| S-EPMC7860196 | biostudies-literature

Minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in prostate cancer clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of the study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with prostate cancer.MethodsWe used data from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected by strength of correlations with QLQ-C30 scales. In addition, clinicians' input was obtained with regard to plausibility of the selected anchors. The mean change method was applied for interpreting change over time within a group of patients and linear regression models were fitted to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. Distribution-based estimates were also evaluated.ResultsTwo clinical anchors were eligible for MID estimation; performance status and the CTCAE diarrhoea domain. MIDs were developed for 7 scales (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, global quality of life, diarrhoea) and varied by scale and direction (improvement vs deterioration). Within-group MIDs ranged from 4 to 14 points for improvement and - 13 to - 5 points for deterioration and MIDs for between-group differences in change scores ranged from 3 to 13 for improvement and - 10 to - 5 for deterioration.ConclusionsOur findings aid the meaningful interpretation of changes on a set of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in prostate cancer.

| S-EPMC8496068 | biostudies-literature

Comparing ARIA-E severity scales and effects of treatment management thresholds.

Project description:IntroductionAmyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema (ARIA-E) is associated with anti-amyloid beta monoclonal antibody treatment. ARIA-E severity may be assessed using the Barkhof Grand Total Scale (BGTS) or the 3- or 5-point Severity Scales of ARIA-E (SSAE-3/SSAE-5). We assessed inter- and intra-reader correlations between SSAE-3/5 and BGTS.MethodsMagnetic resonance imaging scans were collected from 75 participants in the SCarlet RoAD and Marguerite RoAD studies. Three neuroradiologists reviewed scans at baseline and at follow-up. Concordance in dichotomized ARIA-E ratings was assessed for a range of BGTS thresholds.ResultsSSAE-3/5 scores correlated with BGTS scores, with high inter-reader intraclass correlation coefficients across all scales. There was high agreement in dichotomized ratings for SSAE-3 > 1 versus BGTS > 3 for all readers (accuracy 0.85-0.93) and between pairs of readers.DiscussionSSAE-3/5 showed high degrees of correlation with BGTS, potentially allowing seamless transition from the BGTS to SSAE-3/5 for ARIA-E management.

| S-EPMC9716634 | biostudies-literature

Minimum important differences for scales assessing symptom severity and quality of life in patients with fecal incontinence.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to estimate the minimum important difference (MID) for the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI) scale of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, the Colorectal-Anal Impact Questionnaire (CRAIQ) scale of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, and the Modified Manchester Health Questionnaire (MMHQ).MethodsWe calculated the MIDs using anchor-based and distribution-based approaches from a multicenter prospective cohort study investigating adaptive behaviors among women receiving nonsurgical and surgical management for fecal incontinence (FI). Patient responses were primarily anchored using a Global Impression of Change scale. The MID was defined as the difference in mean change from baseline between those who indicated they were "a little better" and those who reported "no change" on the Global Impression of Change scale 3 months after treatment. The effect size and SE of measurement were the distribution methods used.ResultsThe mean changes (SD) in FISI, CRADI, CRAIQ, and MMHQ scores from baseline to 3 months after treatment were -8.8 (12.0), -52.7 (70.0), -60.6 (90.0), and -12.6 (19.2), respectively. The anchor-based MID estimates suggested by an improvement from no change to a little better were -3.6, -11.4 and -4.7, -18.1 and -8.0, and -3.2 for the FISI, CRADI (long and short version), CRAIQ (long and short version), and MMHQ, respectively. These data were supported by 2 distribution-based estimates.ConclusionsThe MID values for the FISI are -4, CRADI (full version, -11; short version, -5), CRAIQ (full version, -18; short version, -8), and MMHQ -3. Statistically significant improvements that meet these thresholds are likely to be clinically important.

| S-EPMC4213305 | biostudies-literature

Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) scales and the FSI-3 in trials with cancer survivors.

Project description:BackgroundFatigue is a highly prevalent and disabling symptom in cancer survivors. Although many measures have been developed to assess survivors' fatigue, their ability to accurately capture change following intervention has rarely been assessed in post-treatment survivors. Ultra-brief fatigue measures are preferable in clinical practice but have limited evidence supporting their use with cancer survivors. We examined the psychometric properties of four Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) measures, including the new FSI-3, in cancer survivors. Examined properties included responsiveness to change and minimally important differences (MIDs).MethodsWe analyzed data from three randomized controlled trials with post-treatment cancer survivors (N = 328). Responsiveness to change was evaluated by comparing standardized response means for survivors who reported their fatigue as being better, the same, or worse at 2-3 months. Responsiveness to intervention was assessed via effect sizes, and MIDs were estimated by using several methods. We also computed area under the curve (AUC) values to assess FSI measures' discriminative accuracy compared to an established cut-point.ResultsAll FSI measures differentiated survivors who reported improvement at 2-3 months from those with stable fatigue, but did not uniformly differentiate worsening fatigue from stable fatigue. Measures showed similar levels of responsiveness to intervention, and MIDs ranged from 0.29 to 2.20 across FSI measures. AUC analyses supported the measures' ability to detect significant fatigue.ConclusionsFour FSI scales show similar responsiveness to change, and estimated MIDs can inform assessment of meaningful change in fatigue. The FSI-3 shows promise as an ultra-brief fatigue measure for survivors.

| S-EPMC9308850 | biostudies-literature

A Prospective Study to Examine Responsiveness and Minimally Important Differences (MIDs) for the CLEFT-Q Scales Following Three Cleft-Specific Operations.

Project description:The aim of this study was to examine internal responsiveness and estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) for CLEFT-Q scales.In this prospective cohort study, participants completed the CLEFT-Q appearance and health-related quality of life (HRQL) scales before and six months after cleft-related surgery.Seven cleft centres in Canada, USA and UK participated.Patients were ages 8-29 years with CL/P.Patients underwent rhinoplasty, orthognathic or cleft lip scar revision surgery.Internal responsiveness was examined using Cohen's d effect sizes (ESs) based on the following interpretation: 0.20-0.49 small, 0.50-0.79 moderate and ≥ 0.80 large. MIDs were estimated using two distribution-based approaches.Participants had a rhinoplasty (n = 31), orthognathic (n = 21) or cleft lip scar revision (n = 18) surgery. Most participants were males (56%) and aged 8-11 years (41%). Following rhinoplasty, ESs were larger for the nose (0.92, p = 0.001) and nostrils (0.94, p < 0.001) scales than for the face scale (0.51, p = 0.003). MIDs ranged between 6.2-10.4. For orthognathic surgery, larger ES was observed for the jaws scale (1.80, p < 0.001) compared with the teeth (1.16, p < 0.001), face (1.15, p = 0.001) and lips (0.94, p < 0.001) scales. MIDs ranged between 5.9-14.4. In the cleft lip scar revision sample, the largest ES was observed for the nose scale (0.76, p = 0.03), followed by lips (0.58, p = 0.009) and cleft lip scar (0.50, p = 0.043) scales. MIDs ranged between 6.4-12.3.CLEFT-Q detected change in key outcomes for three cleft-specific surgeries, providing evidence of its responsiveness. Estimated MIDs will aid in interpreting this PROM.

| S-EPMC10018053 | biostudies-literature

Disease severity and minimal clinically important differences in clinical outcome assessments for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.

Project description:IntroductionThis study estimated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for Mini Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes, and Functional Activities Questionnaire across the Alzheimer's disease (AD) spectrum.MethodsRetrospective analysis of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (9/2005-9/2016) and MCID for clinical outcomes were estimated using anchor-based (clinician's assessment of meaningful decline) and distribution-based (1/2 baseline standard deviation) approaches, stratified by severity of cognitive impairment.ResultsOn average, a 1-3 point decrease in Mini Mental State Examination, 1-2 point increase in Clinical Dementia Scale sum of boxes, and 3-5 point increase in Functional Activities Questionnaire were indicative of a meaningful decline. The MCID values generally increased by disease severity; the effect size and standardized response mean for those with meaningful decline were consistently in the acceptable ranges for MCID.DiscussionThese findings can inform design and interpretation of future clinical trials.

| S-EPMC6690415 | biostudies-literature

Reliability and clinically important improvement thresholds for osteoarthritis pain and function scales: a multicenter study.

Project description:To assess the reliability and clinically meaningful thresholds of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP) score, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical function Short-form (KOOS-PS), the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical function Short-form (HOOS-PS), and the Quality of life subscales of HOOS/KOOS (HOOS-QOL/KOOS-QOL) in patients with knee or hip arthritis.One hundred and ninety-five patients (141 knee, 54 hip) seen at 2 orthopedic outpatient clinics with a diagnosis of knee or hip OA completed patient-reported questionnaires (ICOAP pain scale, KOOS-PS, HOOS-PS, KOOS-QOL, HOOS-QOL) at baseline and 2-week followup. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). We calculated minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and moderate improvement in the subgroup that reported change in the status of their affected joint.The reliability as assessed by ICC was as follows: ICOAP pain scale, 0.63 (0.48, 0.74) in patients with knee arthritis, and 0.86 (0.73, 0.93) for hip arthritis; KOOS-PS, 0.66 (0.52, 0.77); HOOS-PS, 0.82 (0.66, 0.91); KOOS-QOL, 0.79 (0.69, 0.86); and HOOS-QOL, 0.67 (0.42, 0.83). MCID and moderate improvement estimates in patients with knee arthritis were ICOAP pain scale, 18.5 and 26.7; KOOS-PS, 2.2 and 15.0; and KOOS-QOL, 8.0 and 15.6. A smaller sample in patients with hip arthritis precluded MCID and moderate improvement estimates.We found that ICOAP pain and KOOS-PS/HOOS-PS scales were reasonably reliable in patients with hip OA. Reliability of these scales was much lower in patients with knee arthritis. Thresholds for clinically meaningful change in pain or function on these scales were estimated for patients with knee arthritis.

| S-EPMC3943561 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data