Cited by 95Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Don’t middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences

Open access
Fayers, Peter M., Hays, Ron D.·2014·Quality of Life Research

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.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-013-0443-4

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]US Food and Drug Administration Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims Guidance for industry 2009 http://www.fda.gov/down loads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidan ces/UCM071975.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2013 PMC1629006 17034633

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Fayers, Peter M.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2013-05-31
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
1-4
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2027391122
Cited by
95
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9
FWCI
25.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (4p20md000182-15)
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG021684)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (P20-MD000182)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
minimally important difference, patient-reported outcomes, regression to the mean, anchor-based estimation
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Visual Acuity, Bias, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Biomedical Research

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