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

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.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

MCID:

Minimal clinically important difference

MID:

Minimal important difference

r:

Correlation coefficient

NEI VFQ-25:

Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25

PRO:

Patient-reported outcome

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415.
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  2. US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Guidance for industry. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071975.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2013.
  3. McLeod, L. D., Coon, C. D., Martin, S., Fehnel, S. E., & Hays, R. D. (2011). Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 11, 163–169.
    Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
  4. Kvam, A. K., Wisløff, F., & Fayers, P. M. (2010). Minimal important differences and response shift in health-related quality of life; A longitudinal study in patients with multiple myeloma. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 79.
    Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
  5. Schwartz, N., & Sudman, S. (1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer.
    Book Google Scholar
  6. Norman, G. (2003). Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Quality of Life Research, 12, 239–249.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  7. Hays, R. D., Farivar, S. S., & Liu, H. (2005). Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2, 63–67.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  8. Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Google Scholar
  10. Suňer, I. J., Kokame, G. T., Yu, E., Ward, J., Dolan, C., & Bressler, N. M. (2009). Responsiveness of NEI VFQ-25 to changes in visual acuity in neovascular AMD: Validation studies from two phase 3 clinical trials. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 50, 3629–3635.
    Article Google Scholar
  11. Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2013). Linking should replace regression when mapping from profile to preference-based measures. Value in Health (submitted).
  12. Galton, F. (1889). Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain, 15, 246–263.
    Article Google Scholar
  13. Dorans, N. J. (2007). Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 85–94.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  14. Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of a half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41, 582–592.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Farivar, S. S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. D. (2004). Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 4, 515–523.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ron D. Hays was supported in part by grants from the NIA (P30-AG021684) and the NIMHD (P20MD000182).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
    Peter M. Fayers
  2. Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
    Peter M. Fayers
  3. Department of Medicine, UCLA, 911 Broxton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA
    Ron D. Hays

Authors

  1. Peter M. Fayers
  2. Ron D. Hays

Corresponding author

Correspondence toPeter M. Fayers.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fayers, P.M., Hays, R.D. Don’t middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences.Qual Life Res 23, 1–4 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0443-4

Download citation

Keywords