» Articles » PMID: 34671666

An Updated Approach to Determine Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Overview
Journal ERJ Open Res
Specialty Pulmonary Medicine
Date 2021 Oct 21
PMID 34671666
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Current medications for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have not been shown to impact patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), highlighting the need for accurate minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values. Recently published consensus standards for MCID studies support using anchor-based over distribution-based methods. The aim of this study was to estimate MCID values for worsening in IPF using only an anchor-based approach.

Methods: We conducted secondary analyses of three randomised controlled trials with different inclusion criteria and follow-up intervals. The health transition question in the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire was used as the anchor. We used receiver operating curves to assess responsiveness between the anchor and 10 variables (four physiological measures and six PROMs). We used an anchor-based method to determine the MCID values of variables that met the responsiveness criteria (area under the curve ≥0.70).

Results: 6-min walk distance (6MWD), the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), physical component score (PCS) of SF-36 and University of California, San Diego, Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSD SOBQ) met the responsiveness criteria. The MCID value for 6MWD was -75 m; the MCID value for SF-36 PCS was -7 points; the MCID value for SGRQ was 11 points; and the MCID value for the UCSD SOBQ was 11 points.

Conclusions: The MCID estimates of 6MWD, SGRQ, SF-36 and UCSD SOBQ using only anchor-based methods were considerably higher compared to previously proposed values. A single MCID value may not be applicable across all classes of disease severity or durations of follow-up time.

Citing Articles

Physical activity coaching in patients with interstitial lung diseases: A randomized controlled trial.

Breuls S, Zlamalova T, Raisova K, Blondeel A, Wuyts M, Dvoracek M Chron Respir Dis. 2024; 21:14799731241235231.

PMID: 38511242 PMC: 10956148. DOI: 10.1177/14799731241235231.


The anchor design of anchor-based method to determine the minimal clinically important difference: a systematic review.

Zhang Y, Xi X, Huang Y Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21(1):74.

PMID: 37454099 PMC: 10350268. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-023-02157-3.

References
1.
de Vet H, Terwee C . The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(7):804-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.015. View

2.
Malec J, Ketchum J . A Standard Method for Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Rehabilitation Measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 101(6):1090-1094. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.008. View

3.
Prior T, Hoyer N, Hilberg O, Shaker S, Davidsen J, Bendstrup E . Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of SGRQ-I and K-BILD in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respir Res. 2020; 21(1):91. PMC: 7175493. DOI: 10.1186/s12931-020-01359-3. View

4.
Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A, Qasim A, Phillips M, Johnston B, Devasenapathy N . Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study. BMJ. 2020; 369:m1714. PMC: 7270853. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m1714. View

5.
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