Table 3.
Summary of minimal important differences from anchor- and distribution-based methods
| Anchor-based method | Distribution-based method | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Within-group | Between-group | |||||||
| Improvement | Deterioration | Improvement | Deterioration | 0.2SD | 0.3SD | 0.5SD | SEM | |
| QL | 9 | − 10 | 11 | − 8 | 4.4 | 6.6 | 11.0 | 9.3 |
| PF | 7 | − 9 | 5 | No MID | 3.7 | 5.6 | 9.3 | 5.6 |
| RF | 15 | − 17 | 7 | − 7 | 5.5 | 8.2 | 13.7 | 11.6 |
| EF | 9 | − 7 | No MID | − 5 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 7.5 |
| SF | 9 | − 12 | No MID | − 7 | 4.7 | 7.1 | 11.8 | 8.5 |
| FA | 7 | − 10 | No MID | − 7 | 4.3 | 6.5 | 10.8 | 8.9 |
| PA | 11 | − 11 | 7 | No MID | 4.7 | 7.0 | 11.7 | 8.8 |
| AP | 10 | − 9 | No MID | No MID | 5.9 | 8.8 | 14.7 | 13.5 |
Symptom scales were reversed to align with functional scales; therefore, positive values represent decreases in symptom scales
SEM standard error of measurement; QL global quality of life; PF physical function; RF role function; EF emotional function; SF social function; FA fatigue; PA pain; AP appetite loss; MID minimal important difference