Effective dose 50 method as the minimal clinically important difference: Evidence from depression trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Previous research on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for depression and anxiety is based on population averages. The present study aimed to identify the MCID across the spectrum of baseline severity.Study design and settings
The present analysis used secondary data from 2 randomized controlled trials for depression (n = 1,122) to calibrate the Global Rating of Change with the PHQ-9 and GAD-7. The MCID was defined as a change in scores corresponding to a 50% probability of patients "feeling better", given their baseline severity, referred to as Effective Dose 50 (ED50).Results
MCID estimates depended on baseline severity and ranged from no change for very mild up to 14 points (52%) on the PHQ-9 and up to 10 points (48%) on the GAD-7 for very high severity. The average MCID estimates were 3.7 points (23%) and 3.3 (28%) for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 respectively.Conclusion
The ED50 method generates MCID estimates across the spectrum of baseline severity, offering greater precision but at the cost of greater complexity relative to population average estimates. This has important implications for evaluations of treatments and clinical practice where users can use these results to tailor the MCID to specific populations according to baseline severities.
SUBMITTER: Bauer-Staeb C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8485844 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is meaningful for patients. Objectives. To calculate the MCID for Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores in early Parkinson's disease (EPD) and for UPDRS scores and "OFF" time in advanced Parkinson's disease (APD). Methods. We analyzed data from two pivotal, double-blind, parallel-group trials of pramipexole ER that included pramipexole immediate release (IR) as an active comparator. We calculated MCID as the mean change in subjects who received active treatment and rated themselves "a little better" on patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) minus the mean change in subjects who received placebo and rated themselves unchanged. Results. MCIDs in EPD (pramipexole ER, pramipexole IR) for UPDRS II were -1.8 and -2.0, for UPDRS III -6.2 and -6.1, and for UPDRS II + III -8.0 and -8.1. MCIDs in APD for UPDRS II were -1.8 and -2.3, for UPDRS III -5.2 and -6.5, and for UPDRS II + III -7.1 and -8.8. MCID for "OFF" time (pramipexole ER, pramipexole IR) was -1.0 and -1.3 hours. Conclusions. A range of MCIDs is emerging in the PD literature that provides the basis for power calculations and interpretation of clinical trials.
| S-EPMC3995302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Aims. The aim of the present study was to determine the estimates of minimal clinically important difference for Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale 2nd version (PDSS-2) total score and dimensions. Methods. The subject population consisted of 413 PD patients. At baseline, MDS-UPDRS, Hoehn-Yahr Scale, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, and PDSS-2 were assessed. Nine months later the PDSS-2 was reevaluated with the Patient-Reported Global Impression Improvement Scale. Both anchor-based techniques (within patients' score change method and sensitivity- and specificity-based method by receiver operating characteristic analysis) and distribution-based approaches (effect size calculations) were utilized to determine the magnitude of minimal clinically important difference. Results. According to our results, any improvements larger than -3.44 points or worsening larger than 2.07 points can represent clinically important changes for the patients. These thresholds have the effect size of 0.21 and -0.21, respectively. Conclusions. Minimal clinically important differences are the smallest change of scores that are subjectively meaningful to patients. Studies using the PDSS-2 as outcome measure should utilize the threshold of -3.44 points for detecting improvement or the threshold of 2.07 points for observing worsening.
| S-EPMC4619979 | biostudies-other
Project description:Estimates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for physical activity (PA) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are needed. The objective is to provide an anchor-based estimate of the MCID for daily step count. PA was promoted in persons with COPD using a pedometer (Omron HJ-720ITC) alone or a pedometer plus interactive website for 3 months. Participants wore the pedometer daily and received phone calls monthly to ascertain medical events. Medical events were counted when a participant self-reported that he/she had (1) worsening of breathing, (2) change to breathing medications, (3) medical care from an emergency room for any reason, or (4) hospitalization for any reason. Generalized linear regression models assessed daily step count as change at the end of study and averaged over the 15, 31, or 61 days centered on the event, in those with an event compared to those without one. All categories of events carried equal weight in the analyses. We studied 93 persons, 46 of whom had an event. Participants who experienced an event had a decrease of 1086 (95% confidence interval (CI): -2124 to -48) or 887 (95% CI: -2030 to 257) steps/day in the pedometer plus website or pedometer alone groups, respectively, compared to those without one. In the days centered on an event, participants who had an event experienced a decrease of 882-983 steps/day (pedometer plus website) or a decrease of 351-495 steps/day (pedometer alone), compared to those without one. The MCID for PA in COPD ranges from 350 steps/day to 1100 steps/day.
| S-EPMC6302974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pedometer step count improves with pulmonary rehabilitation and deteriorates with time. The MCID for improvement and deterioration is 427 and -456 steps, respectively, but there is uncertainty about the reliability of these estimates. https://bit.ly/3ci97Jh.
| S-EPMC7983253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA minimal clinically important difference has not been established for the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale in patients with tardive dyskinesia. Valbenazine is a vesicular monoamine transporter 2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia in adults. Efficacy in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials was defined as the change from baseline in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale total score (sum of items 1-7).ObjectivesTo estimate an minimal clinically important difference for the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale using valbenazine trial data and an anchor-based method.MethodsData were pooled from three 6-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trials: KINECT (NCT01688037), KINECT 2 (NCT01733121), and KINECT 3 (NCT02274558). Valbenazine doses were pooled for analyses as follows: "low dose," which includes 40 or 50 mg/day; and "high dose," which includes 75 or 80 mg/day. Mean changes from baseline in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale total score were analyzed in all participants (valbenazine- and placebo-treated) with a Clinical Global Impression of Change-Tardive Dyskinesia or Patient Global Impression of Change score of 1 (very much improved) to 3 (minimally improved).ResultsThe least squares mean improvement from baseline to week 6 in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale total score was significantly greater with valbenazine (low dose: -2.4; high dose: -3.2; both, P < 0.001) versus placebo (-0.7). An minimal clinically important difference of 2 points was estimated based on least squares mean changes in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale total score in participants with a Clinical Global Impression of Change-Tardive Dyskinesia score ≤3 at week 6 (mean change: -2.2; median change: -2) or Patient Global Impression of Change score ≤3 at week 6 (mean change: -2.0; median change: -2).ConclusionsResults from an anchor-based method indicate that a 2-point decrease in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale total score may be considered clinically important. © 2019 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
| S-EPMC6772010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aims of the study were to evaluate the responsiveness of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) subscale and HADS-Depression (HADS-D) subscale to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with bronchiectasis compared to a matched group of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and provide estimates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of HADS-A and HADS-D in bronchiectasis. Patients with bronchiectasis and at least mild anxiety or depression (HADS-A ≥ 8 or/and HADS-D ≥ 8), as well as a propensity score-matched control group of patients with COPD, underwent an 8-week outpatient PR programme (two supervised sessions per week). Within- and between-group changes were calculated in response to PR. Anchor- and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID. HADS-A and HADS-D improved in response to PR in both patients with bronchiectasis and those with COPD (median (25th, 75th centile)/mean (95% confidence interval) change: HADS-A change: bronchiectasis -2 (-5, 0), COPD -2 (-4, 0); p = 0.43 and HADS-D change: bronchiectasis -2 (-2 to -1), COPD -2 (-3 to -2); p = 0.16). Using 26 estimates, the MCID for HADS-A and HADS-D was -2 points. HADS-A and HADS-D are responsive to PR in patients with bronchiectasis and symptoms of mood disorder, with an MCID estimate of -2 points.
| S-EPMC7301664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Olfactory-specific quality of life (QOL) can be measured using the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders Negative Statements (QOD-NS). Changes in the QOD-NS after treatment can be difficult to interpret since there is no standardized definition of clinically meaningful improvement. METHODS:Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) completed the QOD-NS. Four distribution-based methods were used to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): (1) one-half standard deviation (SD); (2) standard error of the mean (SEM); (3) Cohen's effect size (d) of the smallest unit of change; and (4) minimal detectable change (MDC). We also averaged all 4 of the scores together. Finally, the likelihood of achieving a MCID after sinus surgery using these methods, as well as average QOD-NS scores, was stratified by normal vs abnormal baseline QOD-NS scores. RESULTS:Outcomes were examined on 128 patients. The mean ± SD improvement in QOD-NS score after surgery was 4.3 ± 11.0 for the entire cohort and 9.6 ± 12.9 for those with abnormal baseline scores (p < 0.001). The MCID values using the different techniques were: (1) SD = 6.5; (2) SEM = 3.1; (3) d = 2.6; and (4) MDC = 8.6. The MCID score was 5.2 on average. For the total cohort analysis, the likelihood of reporting a MCID ranged from 26% to 51%, and 49% to 70% for patients reporting preoperative abnormal olfaction. CONCLUSION:Distribution-based MCID values of the QOD-NS range between 2.6 and 8.6 points, with an average of 5.2. When stratified by preoperative QOD-NS scores the majority of patients reporting abnormal preoperative QOD-NS scores achieved a MCID.
| S-EPMC6402812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction and motivationMany health studies measure a continuous outcome and compare means between groups. Since means for biological data are often difficult to interpret clinically, it is common to dichotomise using a cut-point and present the 'percentage abnormal' alongside or in place of means. Examples include birthweight where 'abnormal' is defined as <2500 g (low birthweight), systolic blood pressure with abnormal defined as >140 mm Hg (high blood pressure) and lung function with varying definitions of the 'limit of normal'. In vulnerable populations with low means, for example, birthweight in a population of preterm babies, a given difference in means between two groups will represent a larger difference in the percentage with low birthweight than in a general population of babies where most will be full term. Thus, in general, the difference in percentage of patients with abnormal values for a given difference in means varies according to the reference population's mean value. This phenomenon leads to challenges in interpreting differences in means in vulnerable populations and in defining an outcome-specific minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in means since the proportion abnormal, which is useful in interpreting means, is not constant-it varies with the population mean. This has relevance for study power calculations and data analyses in vulnerable populations where a small observed difference in means may be difficult to interpret clinically and may be disregarded, even if associated with a relatively large difference in percentage abnormal which is clinically relevant.MethodsTo address these issues, we suggest both difference in means and difference in percentage (proportion) abnormal are considered when choosing the MCID, and that both means and percentages abnormal are reported when analysing the data.ConclusionsWe describe a distributional approach to analyse proportions classified as abnormal that avoids the usual loss of precision and power associated with dichotomisation.
| S-EPMC8578978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Patient-reported outcome scales determine response to treatment. The minimal clinically important difference of these scales is a measure of responsiveness: the smallest change in a score associated with a clinically important change to the patient. This study sought to summarize the literature on minimal clinically important difference for the most commonly reported shoulder outcome scales. DESIGN:A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE databases identified 193 citations, 27 of which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS:For rotator cuff tears, a minimal clinically important difference range of 9-26.9 was reported for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 8 or 10 for Constant, and 282.6-588.7 for the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. For patients who underwent arthroplasty, a minimal clinically important difference range of 6.3-20.9 was reported for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 5.7-9.4 for Constant, and 14.1-20.6 for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. For proximal humeral fractures, a minimal clinically important difference range of 5.4-11.6 was reported for Constant and 8.1-13.0 for Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand. CONCLUSIONS:A wide range of minimal clinically important difference values was reported for each patient population and instrument. In the future, a uniform outcome instrument and minimal clinically important difference will be useful to measure clinically meaningful change across practices and the spectrum of shoulder diagnoses.
| S-EPMC6649681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Using a real dataset, we highlighted several major methodological issues raised by the estimation of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of a Patient-Reported Outcomes instrument. We especially considered the management of missing data and the use of more than two times of measurement. While inappropriate missing data management and inappropriate use of multiple time points can lead to loss of precision and/or bias in MCID estimation, these issues are almost never dealt with and require cautious considerations in the context of MCID estimation. METHODS:We used the LIGALONGO study (French Randomized Controlled Trial). We estimated MCID on the SF-36 General Health score by comparing many methods (distribution or anchor-based). Different techniques for imputation of missing data were performed (simple and multiple imputations). We also consider all measurement occasions by longitudinal modeling, and the dependence of the score difference on baseline. RESULTS:Three hundred ninety-three patients were studied. With distribution-based methods, a great variability in MCID was observed (from 3 to 26 points for improvement). Only 0.2 SD and 1/3 SD distribution methods gave MCID values consistent with anchor-based methods (from 4 to 7 points for improvement). The choice of missing data imputation technique clearly had an impact on MCID estimates. Simple imputation by mean score seemed to lead to out-of-range estimate, but as missing not at random mechanism can be hypothesized, even multiple imputations techniques can have led to an slight underestimation of MCID. Using 3 measurement occasions for improvement led to an increase in precision but lowered estimates. CONCLUSION:This practical example illustrates the substantial impact of some methodological issues that are usually never dealt with for MCID estimation. Simulation studies are needed to investigate those issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01240772 (ClinicalTrials.gov) registered on November 15, 2010.
| S-EPMC7251729 | biostudies-literature