Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Determining the minimum clinically important differences for outcomes in the DOMINO trial

By Robert Howard, Patrick Phillips, Tony Johnson, John T. O'Brien, Bart Sheehan, James Lindesay, Peter Bentham, Alistair S. Burns, Clive G. Ballard, Clive Holmes, Ian McKeith, Robert Barber, Tom Dening, Craig Ritchie, Rob Jones, Ashley Baldwin, Peter Passmore, David Findlay, Alan Hughes, Ajay Macharouthu, Sube Banerjee, Roy W. Jones, Martin Knapp, Richard G. Brown, Robin Jacoby, Jessica Adams, Mary Griffin and Richard Gray

Abstract

Background Although less likely to be reported in clinical trials than expressions of the statistical significance of differences in outcomes, whether or not a treatment has delivered a specified minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is also relevant to patients and their caregivers and doctors. Many dementia treatment randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not reported MCIDs and, where they have been done, observed differences have not reached these. Methods As part of the development of the Statistical Analysis Plan for the DOMINO trial, investigators met to consider expert opinion- and distribution-based values for the MCID and triangulated these to provide appropriate values for three outcome measures, the Standardised Mini-mental State Examination (sMMSE), Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Only standard deviations (SD) were presented to investigators who remained blind to treatment allocation. Results Adoption of values for MCIDs based upon 0.4 of the SD of the change in score from baseline on the sMMSE, BADLS and NPI in the first 127 participants to complete DOMINO yielded MCIDs of 1.4 points for sMMSE, 3.5 for BADLS and 8.0 for NPI. Conclusions Reference to MCIDs is important for the full interpretation of the results of dementia trials and those conducting such trials should be open about the way in which they have determined and chosen their values for the MCIDs

Topics: RA Public aspects of medicine
Publisher: Wiley
Year: 2011
DOI identifier: 10.1002/gps.2607
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:32647
Provided by: LSE Research Online
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.... (external link)
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/32647... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.