TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the minimally clinically significant difference
T2 - Scientific considerations, challenges and solutions
AU - Sloan, Jeff A.
PY - 2005
Y1 - 2005
N2 - The scientific considerations surrounding the estimation of a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) are a myriad and challenging. There are a considerable number of hurdles to overcome. The good news is that there are solutions to virtually every one of the scientific hurdles. This paper intends to set out the issues, identify the challenges, and offer solutions so that the state of the science may move forward. The ultimate outcome of the paper may not be to provide a definitive answer for estimating the MCID in every situation, but it should provide a starting point and advice for a process or set of guidelines that may be followed toward achieving this goal. The paper begins with a brief synthesis of the literature and state of the science at the time of publication. The relationship between the process for determining MCIDs for other endpoints, such as tumor response or complete blood culture (CBC) variables, versus toxicity and QOL-related variables is described. The ultimate lessons to be learned from this exercise are: 1. There are many methods available to ascertaining an MCID. None are perfect, but all are useful. 2. All methods converge to similar answers. Supplementary information may refine answers from one or more of the methods. 3. Clinical opinion and patient subjective response should trump statistical theory. 4. A process of MCID estimation involving all approaches to produce a potential range with sensitivity analyses is the optimal solution to producing an MCID based on the most complete knowledge possible.
AB - The scientific considerations surrounding the estimation of a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) are a myriad and challenging. There are a considerable number of hurdles to overcome. The good news is that there are solutions to virtually every one of the scientific hurdles. This paper intends to set out the issues, identify the challenges, and offer solutions so that the state of the science may move forward. The ultimate outcome of the paper may not be to provide a definitive answer for estimating the MCID in every situation, but it should provide a starting point and advice for a process or set of guidelines that may be followed toward achieving this goal. The paper begins with a brief synthesis of the literature and state of the science at the time of publication. The relationship between the process for determining MCIDs for other endpoints, such as tumor response or complete blood culture (CBC) variables, versus toxicity and QOL-related variables is described. The ultimate lessons to be learned from this exercise are: 1. There are many methods available to ascertaining an MCID. None are perfect, but all are useful. 2. All methods converge to similar answers. Supplementary information may refine answers from one or more of the methods. 3. Clinical opinion and patient subjective response should trump statistical theory. 4. A process of MCID estimation involving all approaches to produce a potential range with sensitivity analyses is the optimal solution to producing an MCID based on the most complete knowledge possible.
KW - Clinical significance
KW - Effect size
KW - Measurement tools
KW - Quality of life
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20144377107&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=20144377107&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1081/COPD-200053374
DO - 10.1081/COPD-200053374
M3 - Article
C2 - 17136963
AN - SCOPUS:20144377107
SN - 1541-2555
VL - 2
SP - 57
EP - 62
JO - COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
JF - COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
IS - 1
ER -