Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Oct;30(10):2765-2772.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02897-z. Epub 2021 Jun 15.

Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders

Ron D Hays  1 , John Devin Peipert  2
Affiliations
Review

Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders

Ron D Hays et al. Qual Life Res. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: Estimates of the minimally important change (MIC) can be used to evaluate whether group-level differences are large enough to be important. But responders to treatment have been based upon group-level MIC thresholds, resulting in inaccurate classification of change over time. This article reviews options and provides suggestions about individual-level statistics to assess whether individuals have improved, stayed the same, or declined.

Methods: Review of MIC estimation and an example of misapplication of MIC group-level estimates to assess individual change. Secondary data analysis to show how perceptions about meaningful change can be used along with significance of individual change.

Results: MIC thresholds yield over-optimistic conclusions about responders to treatment because they classify those who have not changed as responders.

Conclusions: Future studies need to evaluate the significance of individual change using appropriate individual-level statistics such as the reliable change index or the equivalent coefficient of repeatability. Supplementing individual statistical significance with retrospective assessments of change is desirable.

Keywords: Meaningful change; Minimally important difference; Reliable change index; Responder.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Needed change in measurement error parameters for coefficient of repeatability equal to MIC on Atrail fibrillation effect on QuailTy-of-Life (AFEQT)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. FDA. (2018). Patient-focused drug development guidance public workshop. Methods to identify what is important to patients and select, develop or modify fit-for-purpose clinical outcomes assessments. https://www.fda.gov/media/116277/download. Accessed 4 Nov 2020
    1. Coon CD, Cook KF. Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(1):33–40. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1616-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwartz N, Sudman S. Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1994.
    1. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1997;50(8):869–879. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00097-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hays RD, Reeve BB. Measurement and modeling of health-related quality of life. In: Killewo J, Heggenhougen HK, Quah SR, editors. Epidemiology and demography in public health. Netherlands: Elsevier; 2010. pp. 195–205.