How to validate clinically important change in health‐related functional status. Is the magnitude of the effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating?

Abstract

Some clinical trials perform repeated measurement over time and estimate clinically relevant change in an instrument's score with global ratings of perceived change or so-called transition questions. The conceptual and methodological difficulties in estimating the magnitude of clinically relevant change over time in health-related functional status (HRFS) are discussed. This paper investigates the concordance between the amount of serially assessed change with effect size estimates (the researcher's perspective) and global ratings of perceived change (the patient's perspective). A total of 217 patients who were scheduled for diagnostic examination were included, and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, extended with MOS-20 items, was assessed before and after medical intervention (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting or pharmaco-therapy). Global questions were applied to assess perceived change over time for every item from domains of physical and emotional functioning and used as the external criterion of relevant change in the analysis of items. Global questions corresponding with overall change in these domains were used in the comparison of change in physical and emotional functioning scales. Two effect size indices were used: (i) ES (mean change/SDpooled) and (ii) ES (mean change/SDchange). A method is described to calculate a value indicating the extent of discordance between the researcher's interpretation of magnitude of change and the external criterion (the patient's perspective). Findings suggest that effect size (ES) (mean change/SDpooled) was in keeping with the magnitude of change indicated by patients' judgements, or their category of subjective meaning, for all scales. Furthermore, in cases in which the magnitude of change estimated with the SRM (mean change/SDchange) was not confirmed empirically by the external criterion ratings, the discordance could be interpreted as a trivial discordance.

Change in disability profile and quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients: a five-year longitudinal study using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Profile (MSIP)

“…It was shown that, according to an external criterion, SRM ≥ 0.20 reflects a clinical relevant change. 37 …”

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cyproheptadine for appetite stimulation in cystic fibrosis

“…A interpretação convencional dos valores de TE é: 0,2 = TE pequeno; 0,5 = TE médio; 0,8 = TE grande 22 . Todas as variáveis mostraram TE grande (Tabela 2).…”

Clinicians’ and patients’ impressions of change in motor performance as potential outcome measures for clinical trials

“…Impressions of change could be used as anchors to define worthwhile effects from the perspectives of the clinicians and patients. 12,18,23 This and similar methodologies are increasingly used in different areas of medicine 3,24,25 and pain management, 11,26 and are starting to be explored in SCI. 27 However, this type of research in SCI requires large numbers of participants, some of whom need to show notable change over time.…”