Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold
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.
KeywordsClinical significance Common cold Evidence-based medicine Health status Minimal important difference Psychometrics Quality of life Questionnaires Respiratory tract infections Severity of illness index Symptom measurement Treatment outcome Upper respiratory infection
- 1.McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 7.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 39.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.Google Scholar
- 41.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.Google Scholar
- 45.Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- 50.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.Google Scholar