Methodological approach for determining the Minimal Important Difference and Minimal Important Change scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-HN43) exemplified by the Swallowing scale
-
Published:2021-07-16
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:0962-9343
-
Container-title:Quality of Life Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Qual Life Res
Author:
Singer SusanneORCID, Hammerlid EvaORCID, Tomaszewska Iwona M.ORCID, Amdal Cecilie DelphinORCID, Bjordal KristinORCID, Herlofson Bente BrokstadORCID, Santos MarcosORCID, Silva Joaquim CastroORCID, Mehanna HishamORCID, Fullerton AmyORCID, Brannan ChristineORCID, Gonzalez Loreto FernandezORCID, Inhestern JohannaORCID, Pinto MonicaORCID, Arraras Juan I.ORCID, Yarom NoamORCID, Bonomo Pierluigi, Baumann Ingo, Galalae RazvanORCID, Nicolatou-Galitis OuraniaORCID, Kiyota NaomiORCID, Raber-Durlacher JudithORCID, Salem DinaORCID, Fabian AlexanderORCID, Boehm AndreasORCID, Krejovic-Trivic Sanja, Chie Wei-ChuORCID, Taylor KatherineORCID, Simon ChristianORCID, Licitra LisaORCID, Sherman Allen C.ORCID,
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to explore what methods should be used to determine the minimal important difference (MID) and minimal important change (MIC) in scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module, the EORTC QLQ-HN43.
Methods
In an international multi-centre study, patients with head and neck cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-HN43 before the onset of treatment (t1), three months after baseline (t2), and six months after baseline (t3). The methods explored for determining the MID were: (1) group comparisons based on performance status; (2) 0.5 and 0.3 standard deviation and standard error of the mean. The methods examined for the MIC were patients' subjective change ratings and receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves, predictive modelling, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean. The EORTC QLQ-HN43 Swallowing scale was used to investigate these methods.
Results
From 28 hospitals in 18 countries, 503 patients participated. Correlations with the performance status were |r|< 0.4 in 17 out of 19 scales; hence, performance status was regarded as an unsuitable anchor. The ROC approach yielded an implausible MIC and was also discarded. The remaining approaches worked well and delivered MID values ranging from 10 to 14; the MIC for deterioration ranged from 8 to 16 and the MIC for improvement from − 3 to − 14.
Conclusions
For determining MIDs of the remaining scales of the EORTC QLQ-HN43, we will omit comparisons of groups based on the Karnofsky Performance Score. Other external anchors are needed instead. Distribution-based methods worked well and will be applied as a starting strategy for analyses. For the calculation of MICs, subjective change ratings, predictive modelling, and standard-deviation based approaches are suitable methods whereas ROC analyses seem to be inappropriate.
Funder
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference43 articles.
1. King, M. T. (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): A critique of terminology and methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 11, 171–184. 2. Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 395–407. 3. Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health-status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415. 4. Sloan, J. A., Cella, D., Frost, M., Guyatt, G. H., Sprangers, M., & Symonds, T. (2002). Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: Introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 367–370. 5. Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 139–144.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|