The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores
Abstract
Purpose To facilitate the interpretation of empirical results produced by the 15D, a generic, preference-based instrument for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a subjective five-category global assessment scale (GAS) was used as an external anchor to determine the minimum important change (MIC) in the 15D scores.Methods Altogether 4,903 hospital patients representing sixteen disease entities and having the 15D score at baseline repeated the HRQoL assessment at 6 months after treatment and answered the question: compared to the situation before treatment, my overall health status is now (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) much the same, (4) slightly worse, (5) much worse. Regression analysis was used to estimate the MIC for improvement/deterioration, defined as the lower/upper limit of 99.9 % confidence interval of the regression coefficient, standardized for baseline HRQoL, for categories (2) and (4), respectively, and confirmed by ROC curve analysis.Results The limits or intervals for classifying the changes of 15D scores into GAS categories were >.035 for (1), .015-.035 for (2),>-.015 and<.015 for (3), -.035--.015 for (4) and <-.035 for (5). The lower/upper limits of ±.015 for categories (2) and (4) can be regarded as the generic MIC thresholds for improvement/deterioration, respectively.Conclusions The generic MICs for the change of 15D scores are ±.015. Follow-up studies using the 15D should report the mean change in the 15D score, its statistical significance, relationship to the MIC, and the distribution of the changes of the 15D scores into the five categories.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“It has been suggested that the generic minimal important change is ±0.015 and a large change is ±0.035 [22].”
From Improved cardiorespiratory fitness after occupational rehabilitation in merged diagnostic groups (2018) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“The clinical importance of this change is uncertain, but it is in the area of cut-off suggested as a minimum important change [30].”
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
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6 · Cited by 4,982
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods
Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W., & Schuler, T. C. (2007) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008 · Cited by 1,662
Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status Measures
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.4065/77.4.371 · Cited by 1,525
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0 · Cited by 1,341
The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications
Sintonen, H. (2001) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.3109/07853890109002086 · Cited by 1,256
Self-citationEstimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer
Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. F. (2007) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-70 · Cited by 932
Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00071-2 · Cited by 881
Minimal Clinically Important Difference
McGlothlin, A. E., & Lewis, R. J. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.13128 · Cited by 709
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mouelhi, Y., Jouve, E., Castelli, C., & Gentile, S. (2020) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s12955-020-01344-w · Cited by 397
“Some studies [43, 51, 54, 60, 76] identified the MCID as the upper corner of the curve, and other studies [45, 65] identified the MCID as the point of the receiver operating characteristics curve in which sensitivity and specificity are maximized (Maximum (Sensibility+Specificity-1), Youden index).”
BackgroundGrönroos, S., Helmiö, M., Juuti, A., Lintuaho, R., Hurme, S. A. M., Löyttyniemi, E., Ovaska, J. T., Leivonen, M., Peromaa-Haavisto, P., Mäklin, S., et al. (2020) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5666 · Cited by 232
Self-citationForsmo, H. M., Pfeffer, F., Rasdal, A., Sintonen, H., Kørner, H., & Erichsen, C. (2016) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.10.031 · Cited by 177
Self-citationHartikainen, J. E. K., Hassinen, I., Hedman, A. E., Kivelä, A., Saraste, A., Knuuti, J. M., Husso, M., Mussalo, H., Hedman, M., Rissanen, T. T., et al. (2017) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx352 · Cited by 147
“015 in the 15D score is clinically significant.(21) CCS Class was evaluated at baseline and during the follow-up using standard methods.”
MethodChen, G., & Ratcliffe, J. (2015) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0286-7 · Cited by 138
“015 taken from the 15D [51] as a reference MID threshold for the 16D and 17D instruments).”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Alanne, S., Roine, R. P., Räsänen, P., Vainiola, T., & Sintonen, H.
- Affiliations
- Seinäjoen Keskussairaala (FI)
- University of Eastern Finland (FI)
- Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa (FI)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Sintonen, Harri
- Venue
- Quality of Life Research
- Published
- 2014-08-22
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 599-606
- ISSN
- 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2649
- OpenAlex
- W2023078845
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 45.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- 15D, health-related quality of life, Global Assessment Scale, self-rated health, hospitalized patients
- MeSH terms
- Female, Finland, Follow-Up Studies, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, ROC Curve, Models, Statistical
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
