Assessing baseline dependency of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC): don’t stratify on the baseline score

Purpose The minimal important change (MIC) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is often suspected to be baseline dependent, typically in the sense that patients who are in a poorer baseline health condition need greater improvement to qualify as minimally important. Testing MIC baseline dep...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Quality of life research 2021-10, Vol.30 (10), p.2773-2782
Hauptverfasser: Terluin, Berend, Roos, Ewa M., Terwee, Caroline B., Thorlund, Jonas B., Ingelsrud, Lina H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2782
container_issue 10
container_start_page 2773
container_title Quality of life research
container_volume 30
creator Terluin, Berend
Roos, Ewa M.
Terwee, Caroline B.
Thorlund, Jonas B.
Ingelsrud, Lina H.
description Purpose The minimal important change (MIC) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is often suspected to be baseline dependent, typically in the sense that patients who are in a poorer baseline health condition need greater improvement to qualify as minimally important. Testing MIC baseline dependency is commonly performed by creating two or more subgroups, stratified on the baseline PROM score. This study’s purpose was to show that this practice produces biased subgroup MIC estimates resulting in spurious MIC baseline dependency, and to develop alternative methods to evaluate MIC baseline dependency. Methods Datasets with PROM baseline and follow-up scores and transition ratings were simulated with and without MIC baseline dependency. Mean change MICs, ROC-based MICs, predictive MICs, and adjusted MICs were estimated before and after stratification on the baseline score. Three alternative methods were developed and evaluated. The methods were applied in a real data example for illustration. Results Baseline stratification resulted in biased subgroup MIC estimates and the false impression of MIC baseline dependency, due to redistribution of measurement error. Two of the alternative methods require a second baseline measurement with the same PROM or another correlated PROM. The third method involves the construction of two parallel tests based on splitting the PROM’s item set. Two methods could be applied to the real data. Conclusion MIC baseline dependency should not be tested in subgroups based on stratification on the baseline PROM score. Instead, one or more of the suggested alternative methods should be used.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11136-021-02886-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8481187</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2533315732</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d006e08c20928311fe62cecf988f2cd12e1888c6f1fc36163c4f25513fdb848c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kb9uFDEQhy0EIkfgBSiQJZpQLIz_rNdLESk6BYgURAO15fOO7zbatQ_bh5SO1-D1eJL4uJAABYXlYr75POMfIc8ZvGYA3ZvMGBOqAc7q0Vo1_AFZsLYTDVeyf0gW0Cve9EKKI_Ik5ysA0D3wx-RISJBMaViQcpYz5jyGNV3ZjNMYkA64xTBgcNc0emqD28TU7KsDnccwznai47yNqdhQqNvYsEZ68vFi-eotHWL4-f1HobkkW0ZfBYGWDd67s4sJn5JH3k4Zn93ex-TLu_PPyw_N5af3F8uzy8bJTpZmAFAI2nHouRaMeVTcofO91p67gXFkWmunPPNOKKaEk563LRN-WGmpnTgmpwfvdreacXAY6liT2aa6Q7o20Y7m70oYN2Ydv5nazZjuquDkVpDi1x3mYuYxO5wmGzDusuGtEGL_47yiL_9Br-IuhbpepbpOgZQtVIofKJdizgn93TAMzD5UcwjV1FDNr1DNXv3izzXuWn6nWAFxAHIt1TTS_dv_0d4AHqSu6A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2577604450</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing baseline dependency of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC): don’t stratify on the baseline score</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink</source><creator>Terluin, Berend ; Roos, Ewa M. ; Terwee, Caroline B. ; Thorlund, Jonas B. ; Ingelsrud, Lina H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Terluin, Berend ; Roos, Ewa M. ; Terwee, Caroline B. ; Thorlund, Jonas B. ; Ingelsrud, Lina H.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose The minimal important change (MIC) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is often suspected to be baseline dependent, typically in the sense that patients who are in a poorer baseline health condition need greater improvement to qualify as minimally important. Testing MIC baseline dependency is commonly performed by creating two or more subgroups, stratified on the baseline PROM score. This study’s purpose was to show that this practice produces biased subgroup MIC estimates resulting in spurious MIC baseline dependency, and to develop alternative methods to evaluate MIC baseline dependency. Methods Datasets with PROM baseline and follow-up scores and transition ratings were simulated with and without MIC baseline dependency. Mean change MICs, ROC-based MICs, predictive MICs, and adjusted MICs were estimated before and after stratification on the baseline score. Three alternative methods were developed and evaluated. The methods were applied in a real data example for illustration. Results Baseline stratification resulted in biased subgroup MIC estimates and the false impression of MIC baseline dependency, due to redistribution of measurement error. Two of the alternative methods require a second baseline measurement with the same PROM or another correlated PROM. The third method involves the construction of two parallel tests based on splitting the PROM’s item set. Two methods could be applied to the real data. Conclusion MIC baseline dependency should not be tested in subgroups based on stratification on the baseline PROM score. Instead, one or more of the suggested alternative methods should be used.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0962-9343</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2649</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-02886-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34041680</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Estimates ; Humans ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Methods ; Patients ; Public Health ; Quality of life ; Quality of Life - psychology ; Quality of Life Research ; Random variables ; Range of Motion, Articular ; ROC Curve ; Sociology</subject><ispartof>Quality of life research, 2021-10, Vol.30 (10), p.2773-2782</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d006e08c20928311fe62cecf988f2cd12e1888c6f1fc36163c4f25513fdb848c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d006e08c20928311fe62cecf988f2cd12e1888c6f1fc36163c4f25513fdb848c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8944-5238</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11136-021-02886-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11136-021-02886-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34041680$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Terluin, Berend</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roos, Ewa M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Terwee, Caroline B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorlund, Jonas B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingelsrud, Lina H.</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing baseline dependency of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC): don’t stratify on the baseline score</title><title>Quality of life research</title><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><description>Purpose The minimal important change (MIC) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is often suspected to be baseline dependent, typically in the sense that patients who are in a poorer baseline health condition need greater improvement to qualify as minimally important. Testing MIC baseline dependency is commonly performed by creating two or more subgroups, stratified on the baseline PROM score. This study’s purpose was to show that this practice produces biased subgroup MIC estimates resulting in spurious MIC baseline dependency, and to develop alternative methods to evaluate MIC baseline dependency. Methods Datasets with PROM baseline and follow-up scores and transition ratings were simulated with and without MIC baseline dependency. Mean change MICs, ROC-based MICs, predictive MICs, and adjusted MICs were estimated before and after stratification on the baseline score. Three alternative methods were developed and evaluated. The methods were applied in a real data example for illustration. Results Baseline stratification resulted in biased subgroup MIC estimates and the false impression of MIC baseline dependency, due to redistribution of measurement error. Two of the alternative methods require a second baseline measurement with the same PROM or another correlated PROM. The third method involves the construction of two parallel tests based on splitting the PROM’s item set. Two methods could be applied to the real data. Conclusion MIC baseline dependency should not be tested in subgroups based on stratification on the baseline PROM score. Instead, one or more of the suggested alternative methods should be used.</description><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Quality of Life - psychology</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Random variables</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><issn>0962-9343</issn><issn>1573-2649</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kb9uFDEQhy0EIkfgBSiQJZpQLIz_rNdLESk6BYgURAO15fOO7zbatQ_bh5SO1-D1eJL4uJAABYXlYr75POMfIc8ZvGYA3ZvMGBOqAc7q0Vo1_AFZsLYTDVeyf0gW0Cve9EKKI_Ik5ysA0D3wx-RISJBMaViQcpYz5jyGNV3ZjNMYkA64xTBgcNc0emqD28TU7KsDnccwznai47yNqdhQqNvYsEZ68vFi-eotHWL4-f1HobkkW0ZfBYGWDd67s4sJn5JH3k4Zn93ex-TLu_PPyw_N5af3F8uzy8bJTpZmAFAI2nHouRaMeVTcofO91p67gXFkWmunPPNOKKaEk563LRN-WGmpnTgmpwfvdreacXAY6liT2aa6Q7o20Y7m70oYN2Ydv5nazZjuquDkVpDi1x3mYuYxO5wmGzDusuGtEGL_47yiL_9Br-IuhbpepbpOgZQtVIofKJdizgn93TAMzD5UcwjV1FDNr1DNXv3izzXuWn6nWAFxAHIt1TTS_dv_0d4AHqSu6A</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Terluin, Berend</creator><creator>Roos, Ewa M.</creator><creator>Terwee, Caroline B.</creator><creator>Thorlund, Jonas B.</creator><creator>Ingelsrud, Lina H.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8944-5238</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>Assessing baseline dependency of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC): don’t stratify on the baseline score</title><author>Terluin, Berend ; Roos, Ewa M. ; Terwee, Caroline B. ; Thorlund, Jonas B. ; Ingelsrud, Lina H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d006e08c20928311fe62cecf988f2cd12e1888c6f1fc36163c4f25513fdb848c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Quality of Life - psychology</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Random variables</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Terluin, Berend</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roos, Ewa M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Terwee, Caroline B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorlund, Jonas B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingelsrud, Lina H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Terluin, Berend</au><au>Roos, Ewa M.</au><au>Terwee, Caroline B.</au><au>Thorlund, Jonas B.</au><au>Ingelsrud, Lina H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing baseline dependency of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC): don’t stratify on the baseline score</atitle><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle><stitle>Qual Life Res</stitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2773</spage><epage>2782</epage><pages>2773-2782</pages><issn>0962-9343</issn><eissn>1573-2649</eissn><abstract>Purpose The minimal important change (MIC) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is often suspected to be baseline dependent, typically in the sense that patients who are in a poorer baseline health condition need greater improvement to qualify as minimally important. Testing MIC baseline dependency is commonly performed by creating two or more subgroups, stratified on the baseline PROM score. This study’s purpose was to show that this practice produces biased subgroup MIC estimates resulting in spurious MIC baseline dependency, and to develop alternative methods to evaluate MIC baseline dependency. Methods Datasets with PROM baseline and follow-up scores and transition ratings were simulated with and without MIC baseline dependency. Mean change MICs, ROC-based MICs, predictive MICs, and adjusted MICs were estimated before and after stratification on the baseline score. Three alternative methods were developed and evaluated. The methods were applied in a real data example for illustration. Results Baseline stratification resulted in biased subgroup MIC estimates and the false impression of MIC baseline dependency, due to redistribution of measurement error. Two of the alternative methods require a second baseline measurement with the same PROM or another correlated PROM. The third method involves the construction of two parallel tests based on splitting the PROM’s item set. Two methods could be applied to the real data. Conclusion MIC baseline dependency should not be tested in subgroups based on stratification on the baseline PROM score. Instead, one or more of the suggested alternative methods should be used.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>34041680</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11136-021-02886-2</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8944-5238</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0962-9343
ispartof Quality of life research, 2021-10, Vol.30 (10), p.2773-2782
issn 0962-9343
1573-2649
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8481187
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink
subjects Estimates
Humans
Medical research
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Methods
Patients
Public Health
Quality of life
Quality of Life - psychology
Quality of Life Research
Random variables
Range of Motion, Articular
ROC Curve
Sociology
title Assessing baseline dependency of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC): don’t stratify on the baseline score
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T07%3A12%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20baseline%20dependency%20of%20anchor-based%20minimal%20important%20change%20(MIC):%20don%E2%80%99t%20stratify%20on%20the%20baseline%20score&rft.jtitle=Quality%20of%20life%20research&rft.au=Terluin,%20Berend&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2773&rft.epage=2782&rft.pages=2773-2782&rft.issn=0962-9343&rft.eissn=1573-2649&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11136-021-02886-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2533315732%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2577604450&rft_id=info:pmid/34041680&rfr_iscdi=true