» Articles » PMID: 29355894

How Should Minimally Important Change Scores for the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure Be Interpreted? A Validation Using Varied Methods

Overview
Journal Br J Dermatol
Specialty Dermatology
Date 2018 Jan 23
PMID 29355894
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), scored 0-28, is the core outcome instrument recommended for measuring patient-reported atopic eczema symptoms in clinical trials. To date, two published studies have broadly concurred that the minimally important change (MIC) of the POEM is three points. Further assessment of the MIC of POEM in different populations, and using a variety of methods, will improve interpretability of the POEM in research and clinical practice.

Objectives: To calculate the smallest detectable change in the POEM and estimate the MIC of the POEM using a variety of methods in a trial dataset of children with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema.

Methods: This study used distribution-based and anchor-based methods to calculate the MIC of the POEM in children with moderate-to-severe eczema.

Results: Data were collected from 300 children. The smallest detectable change was 2·13. The MIC estimates were 1·07 (using 0·2 SD of baseline POEM scores) and 2·68 (using 0·5 SD of baseline POEM scores) based on distribution-based methods; were 3·09-6·13 based on patient-/parent-reported anchor-based methods; and were 3·23-5·38 based on investigator-reported anchor-based methods.

Conclusions: We recommend the following thresholds be used to interpret changes in POEM scores: ≤ 2, unlikely to be a change beyond measurement error; 2·1-2·9, a small change detected that is likely to be beyond measurement error but may not be clinically important; 3-3·9, probably a clinically important change; ≥ 4, very likely to be a clinically important change.

Citing Articles

The Eczema Bathing Study: Weekly versus daily bathing for people with eczema? Protocol of an online, randomised controlled trial.

Fong W, Howells L, Muller I, Mitchell E, Baker A, Thuma L NIHR Open Res. 2025; 4:63.

PMID: 39927124 PMC: 11803374. DOI: 10.3310/nihropenres.13659.1.


Effectiveness of potent topical corticosteroids versus mild ones in primary care for children with moderate flare-ups of atopic dermatitis; results of a randomised controlled trial.

van Halewijn K, Elshout G, Bohnen A, Bindels P, Pasmans S BMJ Open. 2025; 14(12):e078940.

PMID: 39806719 PMC: 11667327. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078940.


Determining the minimal important change of the recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) instrument in clinical trials.

Baker A, Stuart B, Howells L, Mitchell E, Thomas K Skin Health Dis. 2024; 4(6):e470.

PMID: 39624761 PMC: 11608894. DOI: 10.1002/ski2.470.


Mānuka oil based ECMT-154 versus vehicle control for the topical treatment of eczema: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial in community pharmacies in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Shortt G, Shortt N, Bird G, Kerse K, Lieffering N, Martin A BMC Complement Med Ther. 2024; 24(1):61.

PMID: 38287323 PMC: 10823637. DOI: 10.1186/s12906-024-04358-9.


Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people.

Sach T, Onoja M, Clarke H, Santer M, Muller I, Becque T Eur J Health Econ. 2024; 25(7):1165-1176.

PMID: 38194207 PMC: 11377600. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01649-9.


References
1.
Turner D, Schunemann H, Griffith L, Beaton D, Griffiths A, Critch J . The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 63(1):28-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.024. View

2.
Copay A, Subach B, Glassman S, Polly Jr D, Schuler T . Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007; 7(5):541-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008. View

3.
Crosby R, Kolotkin R, Williams G . Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56(5):395-407. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1. View

4.
Terwee C, Roorda L, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Peat G, Jordan K . Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 63(5):524-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.010. View

5.
Revicki D, Hays R, Cella D, Sloan J . Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(2):102-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012. View