Skip to main content

Table 3 MCID methods estimation: anchors and statistical methods

From: How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods

ReferenceAnchor-basedDistribution-based
n1Anchor (s)ViewpointCutoffs usedStatistical methodsn2Distribution criteria
Kvam AK et al. [30]1Global Rating of Change (GRC: 1–7)PatientImprovement: ‘much better, moderately better and a little better’ Deterioration: ‘a little worse, moderately worse and much worse’CD
Kvam AK et al. [31]1Global Rating of Change (GRC: 1–7)PatientImproved: ‘much better, moderately better and a little better’
Deteriorated: ‘a little worse, moderately worse and much worse’
AC20.2 SD, 0.5 SD
Maringwa J et al. [32]2World Health Organization performance status (WHO PS: 0–4)
Mini-mental state examination (MMSE: 1–30)
ClinicalWHO PS: ± 1
MMSE: + 4 or + 5
CD40.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD, SEM
Maringwa J et al. [33]2World Health Organization performance status (WHO PS:0–4)
Weight change
ClinicalWHO PS: ± 1
Weight gain: < 20%
CD30.2SD, 0.5SD, SEM
Zeng L et al. [34]1Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS: 0–100)Clinical± 10CD40.2 SD, 0.3 SD, 0.5 SD, SEM
Jayadevappa et al. [35]2Health Transition Item of the SF-36 (HTI: NR)
The patient-reported physical signs/symptoms (NR)
Patient‘General health’
‘More tired’
Linear regression31SEM, 0.3SD, 0.5SD
Den Oudsten BL et al. [36]1General Health and Overall QoL (− 9 to + 9)Patient‘Small positive change’: 2 ≤ C ≤ 3
‘Small negative change’: − 3 ≤ C ≤ -2
CD21SEM, 0.5SD
Hong F et al. [37]1The Subject Significance Questionnaire
(SSQ: − 3 to + 3)
PatientNRLinear regression
Bedard G et al. [38]2Overall health (1–7)
Overall QoL (1–7)
PatientOverall health: +  2
Overall QoL: +  2
CD4SEM, 0.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD
Binenbaum Y et al. [39]10.5SD
Sagberg LM et al. [40]1Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS: 0–100)Clinical± 10AC10.5SD
Wong E et al. [41]1Overall QoL (1–7)PatientOverall QoL: 1CD4SEM, 0.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD
Bedard G et al. [42]1Overall QoL (1–7)PatientOverall QoL: +  2CD4SEM, 0.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD
Yoshizawa K et al. [43]1Physician’s global impression of treatment effectiveness (PGI: NR)Physician‘Effective’ vs ‘not effective’ROC
Raman S et al. [44]1Overall QoL (1–7)Patient+  10CD40.2SD, 0.3SD, 0.5SD, SEM
Quinten C et al. [45]3The 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)
ClinicalImprovement: ‘improved’ vs ‘stabe’
Deterioration: ‘no ‘stabe’ vs ‘worse’
CD10.2SD
Kerezoudis P et al. [46]1Health Transition Item (1–5)Patient‘Somewhat better’ or ‘Somewhat worseCD20.5SD, 1SEM
Soer Rt al [47]2Pain Disability Index (PDI: 1–10)
Global perceived effect (GPE: 1–7)
PatientPDI: -9 GPE: +4ROC
Parker SL et al. [48]2Health Transition Item (HTI: 1–4) Patient’s satisfaction after the surgeryPatientHTI: ‘Slightly better’ or Markedly better’ Patient’s satisfaction: ‘Yes’ROC, AC, MDC, CD
Parker SL et al. [49]2Health Transition Item of SF-36 (HTI: 1–4) Patient’s satisfaction after the surgeryPatientHTI: ‘Slightly better’ or ‘Markedly better’ Patient’s satisfaction: ‘Yes’ROC, AC, MDC, CD
Parker SL et al. [50]1North America Spine Society (NASS) patient Satisfaction Scale (1–4)Patient‘The treatment met my expectations’ROC, AC, MDC, CD
Chuang LH et al. [51]1Health Transition Item of the SF-36 (HTI: 0–15)Patient‘A little better’ or ‘Somewhat better’ROC21SEM, MDC
Díaz-Arribas MJ et al. [52]1Self-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]10.5SD
Solberg T et al. [54]1Global Perceived Scale Of Change (1–7)Patient‘Completely recovered’ or ‘much improved’ROC
Carreon LY et al. [55]1MDC
Asher AL et al. [56]1North America Spine Society (NASS) society Satisfaction Scale (1–4)Patient‘Satisfied’ and ‘not satisfied’ groupsAC30.5SD,1SEM,MDC
Kwakkenbos et al. [57]2Global Rating of Change (GRC) (1–7)
The Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI:0–3)
PatientGRC = 2 ‘somewhat better’ or 4 ‘somewhat worse’
MCID of HAQ-DI: +  0.22
CD
Kohn CG et al. [58]31SEM, 0.5SD, 0.33SD
Zhou F et al. [59]1Health Transition Item of the SF-36 (HTI: 1–4)Patient‘Slightly better’ or Markedly better’ROC, AC, MDC, CD
Fulk GD et al. [60]2Global Rating of Change (GRC: − 7 to 7) scoresPatient + Physician+ 5ROC
Frans FA [61]1The change in Fontaine classification (1–4)PhysicianImprovement: ‘improved’ vs ‘no change’ Deterioration: ‘worse’ vs ‘no change’AC10.5SD
Kim SK et al. [62]2The modified Rankin scale (MRS: 0–5) The Barthel index (BI: 0–20)PatientImprovement: ‘Minimally better’ Deterioration: ‘Minimally worse’CD
Chen P et al. [63]1The perceived recovery score of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 (NR)Patient10–15%CD10.5SD
Yuksel S et al. [64]1Global Rating of Change (GRC: −7 to 7) scoresPatientPatients perceiving an improvement as opposed to those who do not (i.e. worse or unchanged)Latent class analysis (LCA)1MDC
Le QA et al. [65]2Clinical Global Impression Improvement (CGI:1–7) The symptom Scale-Interview (PSS-I)PhysicianCGI: 3 or less PSS-I: 23 or lessROC
Regression analysis
20.2SD, 0.5SD
Thwin SS et al. [66]1Clinical Global Impressions Improvement
(CGI-I: 1–7)
PhysicianCGI-I: 1Equipercentile method
Falissard B et al. [67]1Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (CGI-S: 1–7)Physician‘Slightly improved’CD
Stark RG et al. [68]1Patient’s perceived improvement after the treatment (NR)PatientImprovement: ‘better’
Deterioration: ‘worse’
Regression analysis
Basra MK et al. [69]1Global Rating of Change (GRC: − 7 to + 7)PatientSmall change ±2, ±3CD
Modi AC et al. [70]1SEM
Newcombe PA et al. [71]1Verbal category descriptive score (VCD: 0–5)Patient+  1CD3ES, SEM, 0.5SD
Hilliard ME et al. [72]11SEM
Gravbrot N et al. [73]2The 2-wk postoperative overall nasal functioning item
The 2-wk postoperative Short Form Health Survey 8 bodily pain item
Patient1 unitCD2ES, 0.5SD
Hoehle LP et al. [74]1A question related to change in general
health-related QOL (1–5)
Patient‘About the same’ compared to ‘A little better’CD
ROC
10.5 SD
Akaberi A et al. [75]2General QoL using SF-36 PCS and MCS (0–100)
Dyspnea severity (0–120)
PatientGeneral QoL = a t least a 4-point
Change
Dyspnea severity = t least a 5-point
change
Repeated-measures mixed-effect models1ES
Alanne S et al. [76]1Subjective five-category global assessment scale (GAS: 1–5)PatientImprovement: ‘Slightly better’
Deterioration: ‘Slightly worse
ROC
  1. -: 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