Table 3.
MCID methods estimation: anchors and statistical methods
| Reference | Anchor-based | Distribution-based | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n1 | Anchor (s) | Viewpoint | Cutoffs used | Statistical methods | n2 | Distribution criteria | |
| Kvam AK et al. [30] | 1 | Global Rating of Change (GRC: 1–7) | Patient | Improvement: ‘much better, moderately better and a little better’ Deterioration: ‘a little worse, moderately worse and much worse’ | CD | – | – |
| Kvam AK et al. [31] | 1 | Global Rating of Change (GRC: 1–7) | Patient |
Improved: ‘much better, moderately better and a little better’ Deteriorated: ‘a little worse, moderately worse and much worse’ |
AC | 2 | 0.2 SD, 0.5 SD |
| Maringwa J et al. [32] | 2 |
World Health Organization performance status (WHO PS: 0–4) Mini-mental state examination (MMSE: 1–30) |
Clinical |
WHO PS: ± 1 MMSE: + 4 or + 5 |
CD | 4 | 0.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD, SEM |
| Maringwa J et al. [33] | 2 |
World Health Organization performance status (WHO PS:0–4) Weight change |
Clinical |
WHO PS: ± 1 Weight gain: < 20% |
CD | 3 | 0.2SD, 0.5SD, SEM |
| Zeng L et al. [34] | 1 | Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS: 0–100) | Clinical | ± 10 | CD | 4 | 0.2 SD, 0.3 SD, 0.5 SD, SEM |
| Jayadevappa et al. [35] | 2 |
Health Transition Item of the SF-36 (HTI: NR) The patient-reported physical signs/symptoms (NR) |
Patient |
‘General health’ ‘More tired’ |
Linear regression | 3 | 1SEM, 0.3SD, 0.5SD |
| Den Oudsten BL et al. [36] | 1 | General Health and Overall QoL (− 9 to + 9) | Patient |
‘Small positive change’: 2 ≤ C ≤ 3 ‘Small negative change’: − 3 ≤ C ≤ -2 |
CD | 2 | 1SEM, 0.5SD |
| Hong F et al. [37] | 1 |
The Subject Significance Questionnaire (SSQ: − 3 to + 3) |
Patient | NR | Linear regression | – | – |
| Bedard G et al. [38] | 2 |
Overall health (1–7) Overall QoL (1–7) |
Patient |
Overall health: + 2 Overall QoL: + 2 |
CD | 4 | SEM, 0.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD |
| Binenbaum Y et al. [39] | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0.5SD |
| Sagberg LM et al. [40] | 1 | Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS: 0–100) | Clinical | ± 10 | AC | 1 | 0.5SD |
| Wong E et al. [41] | 1 | Overall QoL (1–7) | Patient | Overall QoL: 1 | CD | 4 | SEM, 0.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD |
| Bedard G et al. [42] | 1 | Overall QoL (1–7) | Patient | Overall QoL: + 2 | CD | 4 | SEM, 0.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD |
| Yoshizawa K et al. [43] | 1 | Physician’s global impression of treatment effectiveness (PGI: NR) | Physician | ‘Effective’ vs ‘not effective’ | ROC | – | – |
| Raman S et al. [44] | 1 | Overall QoL (1–7) | Patient | + 10 | CD | 4 | 0.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD, SEM |
| Quinten C et al. [45] | 3 |
The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS15) (0 to 4) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Fatigue (0 to 10) ECOG Performance Status (PS) (0 to 4) |
Clinical |
Improvement: ‘improved’ vs ‘stabe’ Deterioration: ‘no ‘stabe’ vs ‘worse’ |
CD | 1 | 0.2SD |
| Kerezoudis P et al. [46] | 1 | Health Transition Item (1–5) | Patient | ‘Somewhat better’ or ‘Somewhat worse | CD | 2 | 0.5SD, 1SEM |
| Soer Rt al [47] | 2 |
Pain Disability Index (PDI: 1–10) Global perceived effect (GPE: 1–7) |
Patient | PDI: -9 GPE: +4 | ROC | – | – |
| Parker SL et al. [48] | 2 | Health Transition Item (HTI: 1–4) Patient’s satisfaction after the surgery | Patient | HTI: ‘Slightly better’ or Markedly better’ Patient’s satisfaction: ‘Yes’ | ROC, AC, MDC, CD | – | – |
| Parker SL et al. [49] | 2 | Health Transition Item of SF-36 (HTI: 1–4) Patient’s satisfaction after the surgery | Patient | HTI: ‘Slightly better’ or ‘Markedly better’ Patient’s satisfaction: ‘Yes’ | ROC, AC, MDC, CD | – | – |
| Parker SL et al. [50] | 1 | North America Spine Society (NASS) patient Satisfaction Scale (1–4) | Patient | ‘The treatment met my expectations’ | ROC, AC, MDC, CD | – | – |
| Chuang LH et al. [51] | 1 | Health Transition Item of the SF-36 (HTI: 0–15) | Patient | ‘A little better’ or ‘Somewhat better’ | ROC | 2 | 1SEM, MDC |
| Díaz-Arribas MJ et al. [52] | 1 | Self-reported health status change between baseline and 12 month-assessment (NR) | Patient | ‘Completely recovered’ or ‘improved’ | ROC, AC, MDC, CD | – | – |
| Shi H et al. [53] | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0.5SD |
| Solberg T et al. [54] | 1 | Global Perceived Scale Of Change (1–7) | Patient | ‘Completely recovered’ or ‘much improved’ | ROC | – | – |
| Carreon LY et al. [55] | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | MDC |
| Asher AL et al. [56] | 1 | North America Spine Society (NASS) society Satisfaction Scale (1–4) | Patient | ‘Satisfied’ and ‘not satisfied’ groups | AC | 3 | 0.5SD,1SEM,MDC |
| Kwakkenbos et al. [57] | 2 |
Global Rating of Change (GRC) (1–7) The Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI:0–3) |
Patient |
GRC = 2 ‘somewhat better’ or 4 ‘somewhat worse’ MCID of HAQ-DI: + 0.22 |
CD | – | – |
| Kohn CG et al. [58] | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | 1SEM, 0.5SD, 0.33SD |
| Zhou F et al. [59] | 1 | Health Transition Item of the SF-36 (HTI: 1–4) | Patient | ‘Slightly better’ or Markedly better’ | ROC, AC, MDC, CD | – | – |
| Fulk GD et al. [60] | 2 | Global Rating of Change (GRC: − 7 to 7) scores | Patient + Physician | + 5 | ROC | – | – |
| Frans FA [61] | 1 | The change in Fontaine classification (1–4) | Physician | Improvement: ‘improved’ vs ‘no change’ Deterioration: ‘worse’ vs ‘no change’ | AC | 1 | 0.5SD |
| Kim SK et al. [62] | 2 | The modified Rankin scale (MRS: 0–5) The Barthel index (BI: 0–20) | Patient | Improvement: ‘Minimally better’ Deterioration: ‘Minimally worse’ | CD | – | – |
| Chen P et al. [63] | 1 | The perceived recovery score of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 (NR) | Patient | 10–15% | CD | 1 | 0.5SD |
| Yuksel S et al. [64] | 1 | Global Rating of Change (GRC: −7 to 7) scores | Patient | Patients perceiving an improvement as opposed to those who do not (i.e. worse or unchanged) | Latent class analysis (LCA) | 1 | MDC |
| Le QA et al. [65] | 2 | Clinical Global Impression Improvement (CGI:1–7) The symptom Scale-Interview (PSS-I) | Physician | CGI: 3 or less PSS-I: 23 or less |
ROC Regression analysis |
2 | 0.2SD, 0.5SD |
| Thwin SS et al. [66] | 1 |
Clinical Global Impressions Improvement (CGI-I: 1–7) |
Physician | CGI-I: 1 | Equipercentile method | – | – |
| Falissard B et al. [67] | 1 | Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (CGI-S: 1–7) | Physician | ‘Slightly improved’ | CD | – | – |
| Stark RG et al. [68] | 1 | Patient’s perceived improvement after the treatment (NR) | Patient |
Improvement: ‘better’ Deterioration: ‘worse’ |
Regression analysis | – | – |
| Basra MK et al. [69] | 1 | Global Rating of Change (GRC: − 7 to + 7) | Patient | Small change ±2, ±3 | CD | – | – |
| Modi AC et al. [70] | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | SEM |
| Newcombe PA et al. [71] | 1 | Verbal category descriptive score (VCD: 0–5) | Patient | + 1 | CD | 3 | ES, SEM, 0.5SD |
| Hilliard ME et al. [72] | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1SEM |
| Gravbrot N et al. [73] | 2 |
The 2-wk postoperative overall nasal functioning item The 2-wk postoperative Short Form Health Survey 8 bodily pain item |
Patient | 1 unit | CD | 2 | ES, 0.5SD |
| Hoehle LP et al. [74] | 1 |
A question related to change in general health-related QOL (1–5) |
Patient | ‘About the same’ compared to ‘A little better’ |
CD ROC |
1 | 0.5 SD |
| Akaberi A et al. [75] | 2 |
General QoL using SF-36 PCS and MCS (0–100) Dyspnea severity (0–120) |
Patient |
General QoL = a t least a 4-point Change Dyspnea severity = t least a 5-point change |
Repeated-measures mixed-effect models | 1 | ES |
| Alanne S et al. [76] | 1 | Subjective five-category global assessment scale (GAS: 1–5) | Patient |
Improvement: ‘Slightly better’ Deterioration: ‘Slightly worse |
ROC | – | – |
-: Not used, n1 number of anchors, n2 number of distribution criteria, MCID minimal clinically important difference, QoL quality of life, AC average change, MDC minimal detectable change, CD change difference, ROC receiver operating curve, ES effect size, SD standard deviation, SEM standard error of measurement