Abstract
Minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often estimated by selecting a clinical variable to serve as an anchor. Then, differences in the clinical anchor regarded as clinically meaningful or important can be used to estimate the corresponding value of the PRO. Although these MID values are sometimes estimated by regression techniques, we show that this is a biased procedure and should not be used; alternative methods are proposed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- MCID:
-
Minimal clinically important difference
- MID:
-
Minimal important difference
- r:
-
Correlation coefficient
- NEI VFQ-25:
-
Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25
- PRO:
-
Patient-reported outcome
- SD:
-
Standard deviation
References
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415.
US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Guidance for industry. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071975.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2013.
McLeod, L. D., Coon, C. D., Martin, S., Fehnel, S. E., & Hays, R. D. (2011). Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 11, 163–169.
Kvam, A. K., Wisløff, F., & Fayers, P. M. (2010). Minimal important differences and response shift in health-related quality of life; A longitudinal study in patients with multiple myeloma. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 79.
Schwartz, N., & Sudman, S. (1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer.
Norman, G. (2003). Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Quality of Life Research, 12, 239–249.
Hays, R. D., Farivar, S. S., & Liu, H. (2005). Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2, 63–67.
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Suňer, I. J., Kokame, G. T., Yu, E., Ward, J., Dolan, C., & Bressler, N. M. (2009). Responsiveness of NEI VFQ-25 to changes in visual acuity in neovascular AMD: Validation studies from two phase 3 clinical trials. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 50, 3629–3635.
Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2013). Linking should replace regression when mapping from profile to preference-based measures. Value in Health (submitted).
Galton, F. (1889). Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain, 15, 246–263.
Dorans, N. J. (2007). Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 85–94.
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of a half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41, 582–592.
Farivar, S. S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. D. (2004). Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 4, 515–523.
Acknowledgments
Ron D. Hays was supported in part by grants from the NIA (P30-AG021684) and the NIMHD (P20MD000182).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fayers, P.M., Hays, R.D. Don’t middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Qual Life Res 23, 1–4 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0443-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0443-4