Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov 22;220(3):265.e1–265.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1094

Table 7:

Minimal important difference of the SF-6D and EQ-5D

SF-6D EQ-5D 2
N Participants
with change
> MID1 		MID1
(95% CI)		 N Participants
with change
> MID1 		MID1
(95% CI)
Overall 548 57.8% 0.026 (0.007, 0.045) N=548 444 47.0% 0.025 (−0.005, 0.054) N=350
OPUS 198 60.9% 0.031 (0.000, 0.062) 305 47.3%  0.013  (−0.026, 0.051)
OPTIMAL 154 64.1% 0.030 (−0.009, 0.068) 139 47.5%  0.042  (−0.005, 0.088)
CARE 132 60.2% 0.017 (−0.019, 0.053) n/a n/a n/a
COLPO 64 43.2% 0.025 (−0.031, 0.080) n/a n/a n/a
1

MID anchor-based method = mean difference between the subsample of subjects reporting “somewhat better” on the global measure of change question from the SF-6D and the subsample of subjects reporting “the same.”

Note: A total of 548 subjects were included in the SF-6D MID estimate (267 reporting “better” and 281 reporting “samee”). A total of 350 subjects were included in the EQ-5D MID estimate (176 reporting “better” and 174 reporting “worse”)