Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches

Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review

“…This was also the case in two studies by Yost and colleagues, one excluding anchor estimates for which the SES was > 0.8 SDs 395 and the other excluding anchor estimates for which the SES was not within the 0.2-0.5 SD range. 396 Some studies, in which a combination of methods were used to evaluate important change, also calculated other metrics that could have been used as part of the process but were not (e.g. SES).…”

Correlation of the National Institutes of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scales and Standard Pain and Functional Outcomes in Spine Augmentation

“…Yost et al 17 defined MID in 6 PROMIS-Cancer scales, including physical function. Their recommended MID was 4 -6 points for physical function and pain interference short forms (an MID for the pain behavior short form was not determined).…”

Health-Related Quality of Life Impact of Bevacizumab When Combined with Irinotecan, 5-Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin or 5-Fluorouracil and Leucovorin for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

“…Distribution-and anchor-based methods have also been used to estimate minimally important differences for scales and subscales from the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy measurement system [5] for non-small cell lung cancer [11], fatigue or anemia [11,12], and most recently breast cancer [13,14] and biological response modifiers [15]. Additional analyses for the purpose of refining the preliminary minimally important differences were completed after the prespecified analyses associated with the clinical studies discussed here and resulted in the recommended minimally important differences of 2-3 points for the CCS score, 4 -6 points for the TOI-C score, and 5-8 points for the FACT-C total score [16]. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the overall study conclusions in light of the one-point differences in recommended ranges for the TOI-C and FACT-C total scores and the prespecified endpoints.…”

“…Sensitivity analyses using the upper end of the published recommended minimally important differences of 6 points for the TOI-C score and 8 points for the FACT-C total score [16] indicated a shorter time to deterioration in HRQoL compared with the prespecified provisional minimally important difference of 7 points for the TOI-C score and no difference in time to deterioration in HRQoL compared with the prespecified provisional minimally important difference of 9 points for the FACT-C total score within each of the treatment arms, and did not change the results between treatment arms. NA .6190 a Number of patients with a baseline assessment.…”

“…There was also a trend toward a longer survival time in patients receiving 5-FU, LV, and BV (16.6 versus 12.9 months; HR, 0.79; p ϭ . 16). Similar to the phase III trial, grade 3 hypertension was more common during treatment with 5-FU/LV plus BV than with 5-FU and LV plus placebo (16% versus 3%) but was controlled with oral medication and did not cause study drug discontinuation.…”