Clinically Important Differences for Mobility Measures Derived from the Testosterone Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background/objectives
Accurate estimates of clinically important difference (CID) are required for interpreting the clinical importance of treatments to improve physical function, but CID estimates vary in different disease populations. We determined the CID for two common measures of walking ability in mobility-limited older men.Design
Longitudinal, multisite placebo-controlled trial.Setting/participants
Men enrolled in the Testosterone Trials who had self-reported mobility limitation and gait speed less than 1.2 m/second (n = 429). Testosterone- and placebo-allocated participants were combined for this study.Results
Mean changes from baseline, adjusting for time-in-intervention and site, were 29.6, 13.2, 12.5, -2.4, and -32.6 m for 6MWD, and 15.4, 7.2, 2.1, -3.4, and -7.2 for PF10 in men who reported their mobility was "very/much better," "little better," "no change," "little worse," or "much worse," respectively. CID estimates using regression, ROC, and eCDF varied from 5.0-29.6 m for 6MWD, and 5.0-15.2 points for PF10.Conclusion
CID estimates vary by the population studied and by the method and precision of measurement. Increases of 16 to 30 m for 6MWD and 5 to 15 points for PF10 over 12 months appear to be clinically meaningful in mobility-limited, older hypogonadal men. These CID estimates may be useful in the design of efficacy trials of therapies to improve physical function.
SUBMITTER: Stephens-Shields AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8500528 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThresholds of minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) are needed to plan and interpret clinical trials. We estimated MCIIs for the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity measures of patient global assessment, pain score, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ), Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI).MethodsIn this prospective longitudinal study, we studied 250 patients who had active RA. Disease activity measures were collected before and either 1 month (for patients treated with prednisone) or 4 months (for patients treated with disease modifying medications or biologics) after treatment escalation. Patient judgments of improvement in arthritis status were related to prospectively assessed changes in the measures. MCIIs were changes that had a specificity of 0.80 for improvement based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. We used bootstrapping to provide estimates with predictive validity.ResultsAt baseline, the mean (±SD) DAS28-ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) was 6.16±1.2 and mean SDAI was 38.6±14.8. Improvement in overall arthritis status was reported by 167 patients (66.8%). Patients were consistent in their ratings of improvement versus no change or worsening, with receiver operating characteristic curve areas ≥0.74. MCIIs with a specificity for improvement of 0.80 were: patient global assessment -18, pain score -20, HAQ -0.375, DAS28-ESR -1.2, DAS28-CRP (C-reactive protein) -1.0, SDAI -13, and CDAI -12.ConclusionsMCIIs for individual core set measures were larger than previous estimates. Reporting the proportion of patients who meet these MCII thresholds can improve the interpretation of clinical trials in RA.
| S-EPMC4216638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCough and sputum are highly prevalent in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has shown to be effective in managing these symptoms. However, the interpretation of the magnitude of PR effects is hindered by the lack of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs).PurposeThis study established MCIDs for the Leicester cough questionnaire (LCQ) and the cough and sputum assessment questionnaire (CASA-Q), in patients with COPD after PR.Patients and methodsAn observational prospective study was conducted in patients with COPD who participated in a 12-weeks community-based PR program. Anchor- (mean change, receiver operating characteristic curves and linear regression analysis) and distribution-based methods [0.5*standard deviation; standard error of measurement (SEM); 1.96*SEM; minimal detectable change and effect size] were used to compute the MCIDs. The anchors used were: i) patients and physiotherapists global rating of change scale, ii) COPD assessment test, iii) St. George's respiratory questionnaire and iv) occurrence of an exacerbation during PR. Pooled MCIDs were computed using the arithmetic weighted mean (2/3 for anchor- and 1/3 for distribution-based methods).ResultsForty-nine patients with COPD (81.6% male, 69.8±7.4years, FEV150.4±19.4%predicted) were used in the analysis. The pooled MCIDs were 1.3 for LCQ and for CASA-Q domains were: 10.6 - cough symptoms; 10.1 - cough impact; 9.5 - sputum symptoms and 7.8 - sputum impact.ConclusionThe MCIDs found in this study are potential estimates to interpret PR effects on cough and sputum, and may contribute to guide interventions.
| S-EPMC6996113 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description:Autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs) comprise a group of rare conditions marked by autoantibodies that specifically target intercellular adhesion molecules. Despite the progress made in comprehending the disease and the increasing number of treatment options available, there is still no definitive cure for AIBDs such as pemphigus, and it continues to have a devastating impact on those affected. The challenges in achieving new approved therapies for AIBDs are complex and multifaceted. One significant obstacle was the prior lack of validated and standardized outcome measures, which are crucial for ensuring precise comparisons between new and traditional therapies. This gap in knowledge has prompted the development of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs), which enable efficient and reliable comparison of therapeutic outcomes between trials. MCID is defined as the minimum difference in an outcome measure that indicates a clinically significant improvement/deterioration in disease severity. Additionally, MCIDs provide a patient-centered approach to evaluating treatment efficacy, by considering whether patients experience a subjective improvement in their symptoms. Therefore, this literature review will examine the derivation and significance of MCIDs for various scoring systems in AIBDs.
| S-EPMC10560849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This article reviews and compares four commonly used approaches to assess patient responsiveness with a treatment or therapy (return to normal (RTN), minimal important difference (MID), minimal clinically important improvement (MCII), OMERACT-OARSI [Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthris Reseach Society International] (OO)) and demonstrates how each of the methods can be formulated in a multilevel modelling (MLM) framework. DESIGN:Cohort study. SETTING:A cohort of patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement were recruited from a single UK National Health Service hospital. POPULATION:400 patients from the Arthroplasty Pain Experience cohort study undergoing total hip (n=210) and knee (n=190) replacement who completed the Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain questionnaire prior to surgery and then at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. PRIMARY OUTCOMES:The primary outcome was defined as a response to treatment following total hip or knee replacement. We compared baseline scores, change scores and proportion of individuals defined as 'responders' using traditional and MLM approaches with patient responsiveness. RESULTS:Using existing approaches, baseline and change scores are underestimated, and the variance of baseline and change scores overestimated in comparison with MLM approaches. MLM increases the proportion of individuals defined as responding in RTN, MID and OO criteria compared with existing approaches. Using MLM with the MCII criteria reduces the number of individuals identified as responders. CONCLUSION:MLM improves the estimation of the SD of baseline and change scores by explicitly incorporating measurement error into the model and avoiding regression to the mean when making individual predictions. Using refined definitions of responsiveness may lead to a reduction in misclassification when attempting to predict who does and does not respond to an intervention and clarifies the similarities between existing methods.
| S-EPMC5577889 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) are included in Canada's Common Drug Review (CDR) process to approve new drugs. Often, the measures report on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but can also describe the symptoms, efficacy and harms important to patients. They can be generic or population/condition specific, validated or not. We examined the frequency, availability and accessibility of validated, specific PROMs and MCIDs reported in the CDR reports.MethodsWe searched the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) on-line database for completed Common Drug Review, Clinical Review Reports (CDR-CRR) between November 2013 and February 2017. Two independent reviewers examined the reports and references for PROMs and MCIDs. Both reviewers separately categorized the PROMs and MICDs according to purpose, validation, availability and funding received. Discrepancies were rectified by consensus with a third investigator.ResultsOne-hundred and five unique PROMs were extracted from 39 CDR-CRR, 57% with a HRQoL component. 91/105 (87%) referenced a validation study and 62/105 (59%) referenced a validation study in the study population of interest. Fifty-seven MCID references were extracted from 39 CDR-CRR. 34/57 (60%) were specific to the study population of interest, and 36% had a HRQoL component. 50% of PROM and 53% of MCID references were publicly available.ConclusionsPROMs and MCIDs referenced in CDR-CRR show similar trends. The majority are validated, but not necessarily in the study population of interest. Continued critical examination is required to evaluate new drugs specific to the population of interest.
| S-EPMC6322322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Client-reported outcomes measures (CROMs) have been previously validated for the evaluation of canine osteoarthritis. A published systematic review indicated that the 'Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs' (LOAD) and the 'Canine Orthopedic Index' (COI) can be recommended for use in dogs with osteoarthritis; these CROMs have also been used in the context of measuring surgical outcomes of dogs with orthopaedic conditions. However, the minimal clinically-important differences (MCIDs) for these CROMs have not been investigated. Such estimates would be useful for investigators and regulators so that these CROMs can be used in clinical trials. Data from the RCVS Knowledge Canine Cruciate Registry were extracted, and baseline and 6 week follow-up data on dogs that had received surgery for cranial cruciate ligament rupture were used to make estimates of MCIDs using distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Data from 125 dogs were categorised based on the anchor question and LOAD and COI scores analysed accordingly. The four anchor-based methods provided a range of MCIDs for each CROM (1 to 8.8 for LOAD and 3.5 to 17.6 for COI). In the two different distribution-based methods, the MCIDs for LOAD ranged from 1.5 (effect size) to 2.4 (standard error of measurement) and the effect size method yielded a result of 2.2 for COI. The results showed that the value of the MCIDs depended on the method that was applied. Receiver operator characteristic curves provided areas under the curve (AUCs) greater than 0.7, which indicated that the cut-off point was acceptable; LOAD had the greater AUC at 0.867. In summary, the authors currently recommend a MCID of '4' for LOAD and '14' for COI although further work in other clinical contexts (such as osteoarthritis associated with chronic pain) is required to add confidence to these estimates. For the first time, we have provided estimates for MCIDs for these two CROMs which will facilitate sample size estimates in future clinical studies that use these CROMs as outcomes measures.
| S-EPMC9894389 | 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:Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is associated with persistent impairments in adaptive abilities across multiple domains. These social, personal, and communicative impairments become increasingly pronounced with development, and are present regardless of IQ. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II) is the most commonly used instrument for quantifying these impairments, but minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) on Vineland-II scores have not been rigorously established in ASD. We pooled data from several consortia/registries (EU-AIMS LEAP study, ABIDE-I, ABIDE-II, INFOR, Simons Simplex Collection and Autism Treatment Network [ATN]) and clinical investigations and trials (Stanford, Yale, Roche) resulting in a data set of over 9,000 individuals with ASD. Two approaches were used to estimate MCIDs: distribution-based methods and anchor-based methods. Distribution-based MCID [d-MCID] estimates included the standard error of the measurement, as well as one-fifth and one-half of the covariate-adjusted standard deviation (both cross-sectionally and longitudinally). Anchor-based MCID [a-MCID] estimates include the slope of linear regression of clinician ratings of severity on the Vineland-II score, the slope of linear regression of clinician ratings of longitudinal improvement category on Vineland-II change, the Vineland-II change score maximally differentiating clinical impressions of minimal versus no improvement, and equipercentile equating. Across strata, the Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior Composite standardized score MCID estimates range from 2.01 to 3.2 for distribution-based methods, and from 2.42 to 3.75 for sample-size-weighted anchor-based methods. Lower Vineland-II standardized score MCID estimates were observed for younger and more cognitively impaired populations. These MCID estimates enable users of Vineland-II to assess both the statistical and clinical significance of any observed change. Autism Res 2018, 11: 270-283. © 2017 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Lay summaryThe Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd edition; Vineland-II) is the most widely used scale for assessing day-to-day "adaptive" skills. Yet, it is unknown how much Vineland-II scores must change for those changes to be regarded as clinically significant. We pooled data from over 9,000 individuals with ASD to show that changes of 2-3.75 points on the Vineland-II Composite score represent the "minimal clinically-important difference." These estimates will help evaluate the benefits of potential new treatments for ASD.
| S-EPMC5997920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesRecurring issues in clinical trial design may bias results toward the null, yielding findings inconclusive for treatment effects. This study evaluated for powering bias among high-impact critical care trials and the associated risk of masking clinically important treatment effects.Design, setting, and patientsSecondary analysis of multicenter randomized trials of critically ill adults in which mortality was the main endpoint. Trials were eligible for inclusion if published between 2008 and 2018 in leading journals. Analyses evaluated for accuracy of estimated control group mortality, adaptive sample size strategy, plausibility of predicted treatment effect, and results relative to the minimal clinically important difference. The main outcome was the mortality risk difference at the study-specific follow-up interval.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 101 included trials, 12 met statistical significance for their main endpoint, five for increased intervention-associated mortality. Most trials (77.3%) overestimated control group mortality in power calculations (observed minus predicted difference, -6.7% ± 9.8%; p < 0.01). Due to this misestimation of control group mortality, in 14 trials, the intervention would have had to prevent at least half of all deaths to achieve the hypothesized treatment effect. Seven trials prespecified adaptive sample size strategies that might have mitigated this issue. The observed risk difference for mortality fell within 5% of predicted in 20 trials, of which 16 did not reach statistical significance. Half of trials (47.0%) were powered for an absolute risk reduction greater than or equal to 10%, but this effect size was observed in only three trials with a statistically significant treatment benefit. Most trials (67.3%) could not exclude clinically important treatment benefit or harm.ConclusionsThe design of most high-impact critical care trials biased results toward the null by overestimating control group mortality and powering for unrealistic treatment effects. Clinically important treatment effects often cannot be excluded.
| S-EPMC7708428 | biostudies-literature