Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 407

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Pharmacological Trials

Jones, Paul W., Beeh, Kai M., Chapman, Kenneth R., Decramer, Marc, Mahler, Donald A., Wedzicha, Jadwiga A.·2014·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
DOI 10.1164/rccm.201310-1863pp
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The concept of a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is well established. Here, we review the evidence base and methods used to define MCIDs as well as their strengths and limitations. Most MCIDs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are empirically derived estimates applying to populations of patients. Validated MCIDs are available for many commonly used outcomes in COPD, including lung function (100 ml for trough FEV1), dyspnea (improvement of ≥ 1 unit in the Transition Dyspnea Index total score or 5 units in the University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire), health status (reduction of 4 units in the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score), and exercise capacity (47.5 m for the incremental shuttle walking test, 45–85 s for the endurance shuttle walking test, and 46–105 s for constant-load cycling endurance tests), but there is currently no validated MCID for exacerbations. In a clinical trial setting, many factors, including study duration, withdrawal rate, baseline severity, and Hawthorne effects, can influence the measured treatment effect and determine whether it reaches the MCID. We also address recent challenges presented by clinical trials that compare active treatments and suggest that MCIDs should be used to identify the additional proportion of patients who benefit, for example, when one drug is replaced by another or when a second drug is added to a first. We propose the term “minimum worthwhile incremental advantage” to describe this parameter.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.201310-1863pp

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

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

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Jaeschke, 1989, Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference, Control Clin Trials, 10, 407, 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Kiley, 2005, Challenges associated with estimating minimal clinically important differences in COPD-the NHLBI perspective, COPD, 2, 43, 10.1081/COPD-200050649 · DOI
  3. Guyatt, 2002, Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures, Mayo Clin Proc, 77, 371, 10.4065/77.4.371 · DOI
  4. Revicki, 2008, Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes, J Clin Epidemiol, 61, 102, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012 · DOI
  5. Cazzola, 2008, Outcomes for COPD pharmacological trials: from lung function to biomarkers, Eur Respir J, 31, 416, 10.1183/09031936.00099306 · DOI
  6. Donohue, 2005, Minimal clinically important differences in COPD lung function, COPD, 2, 111, 10.1081/COPD-200053377 · DOI
  7. Calverley, 2005, Minimal clinically important difference—exacerbations of COPD, COPD, 2, 143, 10.1081/COPD-200050647 · DOI
  8. Anzueto, 2009, Impact of frequency of COPD exacerbations on pulmonary function, health status and clinical outcomes, Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis, 4, 245
  9. Chapman, 2013, Do we know the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for COPD exacerbations?, COPD, 10, 243, 10.3109/15412555.2012.733463 · DOI
  10. Seemungal, 1998, Effect of exacerbation on quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 157, 1418, 10.1164/ajrccm.157.5.9709032 · DOI
  11. Donaldson, 2012, Influence of season on exacerbation characteristics in patients with COPD, Chest, 141, 94, 10.1378/chest.11-0281 · DOI
  12. Mahler, 1984, The measurement of dyspnea. Contents, interobserver agreement, and physiologic correlates of two new clinical indexes, Chest, 85, 751, 10.1378/chest.85.6.751 · DOI
  13. Eakin, 1998, Validation of a new dyspnea measure: the UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire. University of California, San Diego, Chest, 113, 619, 10.1378/chest.113.3.619 · DOI
  14. Mahler, 2013, Efficacy and safety of indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD patients according to dyspnoea severity, Pulm Pharmacol Ther, 26, 348, 10.1016/j.pupt.2013.02.006 · DOI
  15. Mahler, 2005, The MCID of the transition dyspnea index is a total score of one unit, COPD, 2, 99, 10.1081/COPD-200050666 · DOI
  16. Kupferberg, 2005, Minimal clinically important difference for the UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire, J Cardiopulm Rehabil, 25, 370, 10.1097/00008483-200511000-00011 · DOI
  17. Jones, 2005, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MCID, COPD, 2, 75, 10.1081/COPD-200050513 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Schünemann, 2005, Measurement properties and interpretability of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ), COPD, 2, 81, 10.1081/COPD-200050651 · DOI
  19. Calverley, 2007, Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, N Engl J Med, 356, 775, 10.1056/NEJMoa063070 · DOI
  20. Tashkin, 2008, A 4-year trial of tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, N Engl J Med, 359, 1543, 10.1056/NEJMoa0805800 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Buhl, 2011, Blinded 12-week comparison of once-daily indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD, Eur Respir J, 38, 797, 10.1183/09031936.00191810 · DOI
  22. Dahl, 2010, Efficacy of a new once-daily long-acting inhaled β2-agonist indacaterol versus twice-daily formoterol in COPD, Thorax, 65, 473, 10.1136/thx.2009.125435 · DOI
  23. Jones, 2012, Efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients: the ATTAIN study, Eur Respir J, 40, 830, 10.1183/09031936.00225511 · DOI
  24. Puhan, 2011, The minimal important difference of exercise tests in severe COPD, Eur Respir J, 37, 784, 10.1183/09031936.00063810 · DOI
  25. Singh, 2008, Minimum clinically important improvement for the incremental shuttle walking test, Thorax, 63, 775, 10.1136/thx.2007.081208 · DOI
  26. Pepin, 2011, Significance of changes in endurance shuttle walking performance, Thorax, 66, 115, 10.1136/thx.2010.146159 · DOI
  27. Man, 2004, Effect of salmeterol on respiratory muscle activity during exercise in poorly reversible COPD, Thorax, 59, 471, 10.1136/thx.2003.019620 · DOI
  28. Bédard, 2012, Tiotropium improves walking endurance in COPD, Eur Respir J, 39, 265, 10.1183/09031936.00059511 · DOI
  29. O’Donnell, 2011, Effect of indacaterol on exercise endurance and lung hyperinflation in COPD, Respir Med, 105, 1030, 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.03.014 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Thomas, 2013, No room to breathe: the importance of lung hyperinflation in COPD, Prim Care Respir J, 22, 101, 10.4104/pcrj.2013.00025 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Hareendran, 2012, Proposing a standardized method for evaluating patient report of the intensity of dyspnea during exercise testing in COPD, Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis, 7, 345, 10.2147/COPD.S29571 · DOI
  32. Ries, 2005, Minimally clinically important difference for the UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire, Borg Scale, and Visual Analog Scale, COPD, 2, 105, 10.1081/COPD-200050655 · DOI
  33. Vincken, 2002, Improved health outcomes in patients with COPD during 1 yr’s treatment with tiotropium, Eur Respir J, 19, 209, 10.1183/09031936.02.00238702 · DOI
  34. Calverley, 2003, Combined salmeterol and fluticasone in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 361, 449, 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12459-2 · DOI
  35. Zheng, 2007, The efficacy and safety of combination salmeterol (50 microg)/fluticasone propionate (500 microg) inhalation twice daily via accuhaler in Chinese patients with COPD, Chest, 132, 1756, 10.1378/chest.06-3009 · DOI
  36. Vestbo, 2011, Bias due to withdrawal in long-term randomised trials in COPD: evidence from the TORCH study, Clin Respir J, 5, 44, 10.1111/j.1752-699X.2010.00198.x · DOI
  37. Jenkins, 2009, Efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate by GOLD stage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: analysis from the randomised, placebo-controlled TORCH study, Respir Res, 10, 59, 10.1186/1465-9921-10-59 · DOI
  38. Copay, 2007, Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods, Spine J, 7, 541, 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Westwood, 2011, Relationship between FEV1 change and patient-reported outcomes in randomised trials of inhaled bronchodilators for stable COPD: a systematic review, Respir Res, 12, 40, 10.1186/1465-9921-12-40 · DOI
  40. Decramer, 2011, Premature discontinuation during the UPLIFT study, Respir Med, 105, 1523, 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.04.002 · DOI
  41. Gerlinger, 2010, Defining a minimal clinically important difference for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain measured on a visual analog scale: analyses of two placebo-controlled, randomized trials, Health Qual Life Outcomes, 8, 138, 10.1186/1477-7525-8-138 · DOI
  42. Kekow, 2010, Patient-reported outcomes improve with etanercept plus methotrexate in active early rheumatoid arthritis and the improvement is strongly associated with remission: the COMET trial, Ann Rheum Dis, 69, 222, 10.1136/ard.2008.102509 · DOI
  43. Norman, 2001, Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life, Med Care, 39, 1039, 10.1097/00005650-200110000-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Kerwin, 2012, Efficacy and safety of NVA237 versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with COPD: the GLOW2 study, Eur Respir J, 40, 1106, 10.1183/09031936.00040712 · DOI
  45. Mahler, 2013, Dual bronchodilation with QVA149 reduces patient-reported dyspnoea in COPD: BLAZE study, Eur Respir J

Cited by

See all 407

Metadata

Authors
Jones, P. W., Beeh, K. M., Chapman, K. R., Decramer, M., Mahler, D. A., & Wedzicha, J. A.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2014-02-01
Volume
189
Issue
3
Pages
250-255
ISSN
  • 1073-449X
  • 1535-4970
DOI
10.1164/rccm.201310-1863pp
Cited by
407
References
5
Language
en
Licence
academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights (vor)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Pharmacological Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201310-1863pp
The paper
Jones, P. W., Beeh, K. M., Chapman, K. R., Decramer, M., Mahler, D. A., & Wedzicha, J. A. (2014). Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Pharmacological Trials. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201310-1863pp

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.