The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally important changes (MIC) in scores help interpret results from health status instruments. Various distribution-based and anchor-based approaches have been proposed to assess MIC. OBJECTIVES: To describe and apply a visual method, called the anchor-based MIC distribution method, which integrates both approaches. METHOD: Using an anchor, patients are categorized as persons with an important improvement, an important deterioration, or without important change. For these three groups the distribution of the change scores on the health status instrument are depicted in a graph. We present two cut-off points for an MIC: the ROC cut-off point and the 95% limit cut-off point. RESULTS: We illustrate our anchor-based MIC distribution method determining the MIC for the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with low back pain, using two conceivable definitions of minimal important change on the anchor. The graph shows the distribution of the scores of the health status instrument for the relevant categories on the anchor, and also the consequences of choosing the ROC cut-off point or the 95% limit cut-off point. DISCUSSION: The anchor-based MIC distribution method provides a general framework, applicable to all kind of anchors. This method forces researchers to choose and justify their choice of an appropriate anchor and to define minimal importance on that anchor. The MIC is not an invariable characteristic of a measurement instrument, but may depend, among other things, on the perspective from which minimal importance is considered and the baseline values on the measurement instrument under study. A balance needs to be struck between the practicality of a single MIC value and the validity of a range of MIC values.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12 · Cited by 7,770
Farrar, J. T., Young, J. P., LaMoreaux, L., Werth, J. L., & Poole, M. R. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9 · Cited by 5,808
The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods
Jensen, M. P., Karoly, P., & Braver, S. (1986) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9 · Cited by 3,275
Jacobson, N. S., Roberts, L. J., Berns, S. B., & McGlinchey, J. B. (1999) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.67.3.300 · Cited by 853
Clinically important outcomes in low back pain
Ostelo, R. W. J. G., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2005) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003 · Cited by 840
Self-citationInterpreting treatment effects in randomised trials
Guyatt, G. H., Juniper, E. F., Walter, S. D., Griffith, L. E., & Goldstein, R. S. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7132.690 · Cited by 516
Bekkering, G. E., van Tulder, M. W., Hendriks, E. J., Koopmanschap, M. A., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & Oostendorp, R. A. (2005) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/85.6.544 · Cited by 141
Self-citation
Cited by
COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures
Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 · Cited by 3,345
Self-citation(2011) · Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository · Cited by 1,209
Yost, K. J., Eton, D. T., Garcia, S. F., & Cella, D. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.018 · Cited by 597
Lemay, K. R., Tulloch, H. E., Pipe, A. L., & Reed, J. L. (2019) · Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention · doi:10.1097/hcr.0000000000000379 · Cited by 280
Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores
Alanne, S., Roine, R. P., Räsänen, P., Vainiola, T., & Sintonen, H. (2015) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4 · Cited by 231
Cook, J., Hislop, J., Adewuyi, T., Harrild, K., Altman, D., Ramsay, C., Fraser, C., Buckley, B., Fayers, P., Harvey, I., et al. (2014) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta18280 · Cited by 194
Chiarotto, A., Vanti, C., Cedraschi, C., Ferrari, S., de Lima e Sà Resende, F., Ostelo, R. W., & Pillastrini, P. (2016) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2016.02.012 · Cited by 128
Self-citationFerreira, M. L., Herbert, R. D., Ferreira, P. H., Latimer, J., Ostelo, R. W., Nascimento, D. P., & Smeets, R. J. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.018 · Cited by 128
Self-citationStefanovics, E. A., Rosenheck, R. A., Jones, K. M., Huang, G., & Krystal, J. H. (2018) · Psychiatric Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11126-017-9522-y · Cited by 74
Goldsmith, E. S., Taylor, B. C., Greer, N., Murdoch, M., MacDonald, R., McKenzie, L., Rosebush, C. E., & Wilt, T. J. (2018) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4327-8 · Cited by 49
Responsiveness and minimal important change for the quick-DASH in patients with shoulder disorders
Budtz, C. R., Andersen, J. H., de Vos Andersen, N.-B., & Christiansen, D. H. (2018) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s12955-018-1052-2 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- de Vet, H. C. W., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Terwee, C. B., van der Roer, N., Knol, D. L., Beckerman, H., Boers, M., & Bouter, L. M.
- Venue
- Quality of Life Research
- Published
- 2006-10-11
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 131-42
- ISSN
- 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2649
- OpenAlex
- W2079726370
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 19.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
