Cited by 251Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important differences in systemic lupus erythematosus

Open access
Rai, Sharan K, Yazdany, Jinoos, Fortin, Paul R, Aviña-Zubieta, J Antonio·2015·Arthritis Research & Therapy

Abstract

A minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an important concept used to determine whether a medical intervention improves perceived outcomes in patients. Prior to the introduction of the concept in 1989, studies focused primarily on statistical significance. As most recent clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have failed to show significant effects, determining a clinically relevant threshold for outcome scores (that is, the MCID) of existing instruments may be critical for conducting and interpreting meaningful clinical trials as well as for facilitating the establishment of treatment recommendations for patients. To that effect, methods to determine the MCID can be divided into two well-defined categories: distribution-based and anchor-based approaches. Distribution-based approaches are based on statistical characteristics of the obtained samples. There are various methods within the distribution-based approach, including the standard error of measurement, the standard deviation, the effect size, the minimal detectable change, the reliable change index, and the standardized response mean. Anchor-based approaches compare the change in a patient-reported outcome to a second, external measure of change (that is, one that is more clearly understood, such as a global assessment), which serves as the anchor. Finally, the Delphi technique can be applied as an adjunct to defining a clinically important difference. Despite an abundance of methods reported in the literature, little work in MCID estimation has been done in the context of SLE. As the MCID can help determine the effect of a given therapy on a patient and add meaning to statistical inferences made in clinical research, we believe there ought to be renewed focus on this area. Here, we provide an update on the use of MCIDs in clinical research, review some of the work done in this area in SLE, and propose an agenda for future research.

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 · 10.1186/s13075-015-0658-6

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • The prevalence/incidence of elevated DD in adults with T1D is substantially higher than the reported prevalence/incidence of clinical depression or elevated depression symptoms in this population.

    “They are also substantially higher than the reported prevalence/incidence of clinical depression or elevated depression symptoms in this population [18, 19].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hudgens SA, Yost K, Cella D, Hahn EA, Peterman A. Comparing retrospective and prospective anchors for identifying minimally important differences [abstract]. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:629.
  2. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1988.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rai, S. K., Yazdany, J., Fortin, P. R., & Aviña-Zubieta, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Université Laval (CA)
Corresponding author
Aviña-Zubieta, J Antonio
Venue
Arthritis Research & Therapy
Published
2015-06-03
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
143-143
ISSN
1478-6354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1487863225
Cited by
251
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Arthritis Research & Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Université Laval
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K23AR060259)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
minimal clinically important difference, systemic lupus erythematosus, patient-reported outcomes, distribution-based methods, anchor-based methods, reliable change index, standardized response mean, minimal detectable change, standard error of measurement, effect size, Delphi method, outcome measures
MeSH terms
Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Male, Severity of Illness Index

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