Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Evaluative health-related quality-of-life instruments used in clinical trials should be able to detect small but important changes in health status. Several approaches to minimal important difference (MID) and responsiveness have been developed.
To compare anchor-based and distributional approaches to important difference and responsiveness for the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS), an illness-specific quality of life outcomes instrument.
Participants with community-acquired colds self-reported daily using the WURSS-44. Distribution-based methods calculated standardized effect size (ES) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Anchor-based methods compared daily interval changes to global ratings of change, using: (1) standard MID methods based on correspondence to ratings of “a little better” or “somewhat better,” and (2) two-level multivariate regression models.
About 150 adults were monitored throughout their colds (1,681 sick days.): 88% were white, 69% were women, and 50% had completed college. The mean age was 35.5 years (SD = 14.7).
WURSS scores increased 2.2 points from the first to second day, and then dropped by an average of 8.2 points per day from days 2 to 7. The SEM averaged 9.1 during these 7 days. Standard methods yielded a between day MID of 22 points. Regression models of MID projected 11.3-point daily changes. Dividing these estimates of small-but-important-difference by pooled SDs yielded coefficients of .425 for standard MID, .218 for regression model, .177 for SEM, and .157 for ES. These imply per-group sample sizes of 870 using ES, 616 for SEM, 302 for regression model, and 89 for standard MID, assuming α = .05, β = .20 (80% power), and two-tailed testing.
Distribution and anchor-based approaches provide somewhat different estimates of small but important difference, which in turn can have substantial impact on trial design.
- McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
- Kirshner, B., & Guyatt, G. H. (1985). A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 38, 27–36. CrossRef
- Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415. CrossRef
- Powell, C. V., & Kelly, A.-M. (2001). Determining the minimum clinically significant difference in visual analog pain score for children. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 37, 28–31. CrossRef
- Redelmeier, D. A., Guyatt, G. H., & Goldstein, R. S. (1996). Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: A comparison of two techniques. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 1215–1219. CrossRef
- Santanello, N. C., Zhang, J., Seidenberg, B., Reiss, T. F., & Barber, B. L. (1999). What are minimal important changes for asthma measures in a clinical trial? European Respiratory Journal, 14, 23–27. CrossRef
- Schunemann, H. J., Griffith, L., Jaeschke, R., Goldstein, R., Stubbing, D., & Guyatt, G. H. (2003). Evaluation of the minimal important difference for the feeling thermometer and the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire in patients with chronic airflow obstruction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 1170–1176. CrossRef
- van Stel, H. F., Maille, A. R., Colland, V. T., & Everaerd, W. (2003). Interpretation of change and longitudinal validity of the quality of life for respiratory illness questionnaire (QoLRIQ) in inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research, 12, 133–145. CrossRef
- van Walraven, C., Mahon, J. L., Moher, D., Bohm, C., & Laupacis, A. (1999). Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: Implications for sample-size calculation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 717–723. CrossRef
- Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J. N., & Wright, J. G. (2001). A taxonomy for responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 1204–1207. CrossRef
- Brant, R., Sutherland, L., & Hilsden, R. (1999). Examining the minimum important difference. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 2593–2603. CrossRef
- Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986). Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 39, 897–906. CrossRef
- Frost, M. H., Bonomi, A. E., Ferrans, C. E., Wong, G. Y., & Hays, R. D. (2002). Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 488–494. CrossRef
- Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002). Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 371–383.
- Norman, G. R., Stratford, P., & Regehr, G. (1997). Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50, 869–879. CrossRef
- Norman, G. R., Sridhar, F. G., Guyatt, G. H., & Walter, S. D. (2001). Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 39, 1039–1047. CrossRef
- Samsa, G. (2001). How should the minimum important difference for a health-related quality-of-life instrument be estimated? Medical Care, 39, 1037–1038. CrossRef
- Husted, J. A., Gladman, D. D., Cook, R. J., & Farewell, V. T. (1998). Responsiveness of health status instruments to changes in articular status and perceived health in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 25, 2146–2155.
- Guyatt, G. H., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171–178. CrossRef
- Juniper, E. F., & .Guyatt, G. H. (1991). Development and testing of a new measure of health status for clinical trials in rhinoconjunctivitis. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 21, 77–83. CrossRef
- Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 81–87. CrossRef
- Wells, G. A., Tugwell, P., Kraag, G. R., Baker, P. R., Groh, J., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient’s perspective. Journal of Rheumatology, 20, 557–560.
- Todd, K. H., & Funk, J. P. (1996). The minimum clinically important difference in physician-assigned visual analog pain scores. Academic Emergency Medicine, 3, 142–146.
- Bruynesteyn, K., van der Heijde, H. D., Boers, M., Lassere, M., Boonen, A., Edmonds, J, et al. (2001). Minimal clinically important difference in radiological progression of joint damage over 1 year in rheumatoid arthritis: Preliminary results of a validation study with clinical experts. Journal of Rheumatology, 28, 904–910.
- Bombardier, C., Hayden, J., & Beaton, D. E. (2001). Minimal clinically important difference, low back pain: Outcomes measures. Journal of Rheumatology, 28, 431–438.
- Farrar, J. T., Portenoy, R. K., Berlin, J. A., Kinman, J. L., & Strom, B. L. (2000). Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain, 88, 287–294. CrossRef
- Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. L., Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27(Suppl), S178–S189. CrossRef
- Ward, M. M., Marx, A. S., & Barry, N. N. (2000). Identification of clinically important changes in health status using receiver operating characteristic curves. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 279–284. CrossRef
- Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (2002). Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 11, 1–7. CrossRef
- Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Norman, G. R., Wyrwich, K. W., & Patrick, D. L. (2007). The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 815–822. CrossRef
- Wyrwich, K. W., Nienaber, N. A., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 37, 469–478. CrossRef
- Wyrwich, K. W. (2004). Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: Is there a connection? Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 14, 97–110. CrossRef
- Barrett, B., Locken, K., Maberry, R., Schwamman, J., Bobula, J., Brown, R., et al. (2002). The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey: Development of an instrument to measure the common cold. Journal of Family Practice, 51, 265–273.
- Barrett, B. P., Brown, R. L., Locken, K., Maberry, R., Bobula, J. A., & D’Alessio, D. (2002). Treatment of the common cold with unrefined echinacea: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 137, 939–946.
- Barrett, B., Brown, R., Mundt, M., Safdar, N., Dye, L., Maberry, R., et al. (2005). The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey is responsive, reliable, and valid. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 609–617. CrossRef
- Jackson, G. G., Dowling, H. F., & Muldoon, R. L. (1962). Present concepts of the common cold. American Journal of Public Health, 52, 940–945.
- McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., & Raczek, A. E. (1998). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31, 247–263. CrossRef
- Ware, J. E, Kosinski, M., Dewey, J. E., & Gandek, B. (2001) How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: A manual for users of the SF-8 health survey. Lincoln RI: Quality Metric.
- Barrett, B., Brown, R., Voland, R., Maberry, R., & Turner, R. (2006). Relations among questionnaire and laboratory measures of rhinovirus infection. European Respiratory Journal, 28, 358–363. CrossRef
- Yang, M., & Goldstein, H. (1996). Multilebel models for longitudinal data. In U. Engel & J. Tanner (Eds.), Analysis of change: Advanced techniques in panel data analysis (pp. 191–220). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
- Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1990). A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales. Data from a randomized trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 11, 43–51. CrossRef
- Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. CrossRef
- Froberg, D. G., & Kane, R. L. (1989). Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 459–471. CrossRef
- Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. London: Academic Press.
- Gwaltney, J. M Jr., Hendley, J. O., & Patrie, J. T. (2003). Symptom severity patterns in experimental common colds and their usefulness in timing onset of illness in natural colds. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 36, 714–723. CrossRef
- Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684. CrossRef
- Gleser, G. C., Cronbach, L. J., & Rajaratnam, N. (1965). Generalizability of scores influenced by multiple sources of variance. Psychometrika, 30, 395–418. CrossRef
- Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure “change” – Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80. CrossRef
- Deyo, R. A., & Inui, T. S. (1984). Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Health Services Research, 19, 277–289.
- Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–347. CrossRef
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. CrossRef
- Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41, 582–592. CrossRef
- Norman, G. R. (2005). The relation between the minimally important difference and patient benefit. COPD, 2, 69–73. CrossRef
- Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A., Williams, J. I., Levy, L., & Naylor, C. D. (1996). Using a trade-off technique to assess patients’ treatment preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Medical Decision Making, 16, 262–282. CrossRef
- Naylor, C. D., & Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A. (1994). Can there be a more patient-centred approach to determining clinically important effect sizes for randomized treatment trials? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 787–795. CrossRef
- Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold
Quality of Life Research
Volume 17, Issue 1 , pp 75-85
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Clinical significance
- Common cold
- Evidence-based medicine
- Health status
- Minimal important difference
- Quality of life
- Respiratory tract infections
- Severity of illness index
- Symptom measurement
- Treatment outcome
- Upper respiratory infection
- Industry Sectors