Table 4.
Summary of anchor-based MIDs for within- and between-group changes compared with distribution-based estimates
| Anchor-based MID for within-group change* |
Anchor-based MID for between-groups difference in change* |
Distribution-based QL scores at t1 (n = 415–425) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Improvement | Deterioration | Improvement | Deterioration | 0.2 SD | 0.3 SD | 0.5 SD | 1 SEM |
| PF | 9 | −10 | 8 | −9 | 4.7 | 7.0 | 11.7 | 7.0 |
| RF | No MID | −6 | No MID | −4 | 5.1 | 7.6 | 12.7 | 10.7 |
| SF | 8 | −7 | 7 | −8 | 5.3 | 7.9 | 13.1 | 9.5 |
| CF | 5 | −4 | 4 | −4 | 4.1 | 6.2 | 10.3 | 8.8 |
| QL | 12 | −8 | 10 | −10 | 4.9 | 7.3 | 12.2 | 10.3 |
| FA | 8 | −8 | 8 | −7 | 4.9 | 7.3 | 12.2 | 10.0 |
| NV | No MID | −11 | No MID | −14 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 8.5 | 10.3 |
| AP | No MID | −14 | No MID | −18 | 5.2 | 7.8 | 13.1 | 12.0 |
The within-group MIDs (from the mean change method) and the between-group MIDs (from the linear regression) were summarized via weighted averages based on scale and anchor pair correlation. The symptom scores were reversed to follow the functioning scales interpretation (ie, 0 represents the worst possible score and 100, the best possible score); “no MID” is used where no MID estimate is available either because of the absence of a suitable anchor or ES was either <0.2 or ≥0.8. = appetite loss; CF = cognitive functioning; ES = effect size; FA = fatigue; MID = minimally important difference; n = number of patients; NV = nausea/vomiting; PF = physical functioning; QL = global quality of life; RF = role functioning; SF = social functioning; t1 = time points for the start of treatment.