4 research outputs found
Methodological approach for determining the Minimal Important Difference and Minimal Important Change scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-HN43) exemplified by the Swallowing scale.
The aim of this study was to explore what methods should be used to determine the minimal important difference (MID) and minimal important change (MIC) in scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module, the EORTC QLQ-HN43.
In an international multi-centre study, patients with head and neck cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-HN43 before the onset of treatment (t1), three months after baseline (t2), and six months after baseline (t3). The methods explored for determining the MID were: (1) group comparisons based on performance status; (2) 0.5 and 0.3 standard deviation and standard error of the mean. The methods examined for the MIC were patients' subjective change ratings and receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves, predictive modelling, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean. The EORTC QLQ-HN43 Swallowing scale was used to investigate these methods.
From 28 hospitals in 18 countries, 503 patients participated. Correlations with the performance status were |r|< 0.4 in 17 out of 19 scales; hence, performance status was regarded as an unsuitable anchor. The ROC approach yielded an implausible MIC and was also discarded. The remaining approaches worked well and delivered MID values ranging from 10 to 14; the MIC for deterioration ranged from 8 to 16 and the MIC for improvement from - 3 to - 14.
For determining MIDs of the remaining scales of the EORTC QLQ-HN43, we will omit comparisons of groups based on the Karnofsky Performance Score. Other external anchors are needed instead. Distribution-based methods worked well and will be applied as a starting strategy for analyses. For the calculation of MICs, subjective change ratings, predictive modelling, and standard-deviation based approaches are suitable methods whereas ROC analyses seem to be inappropriate
Correction: Syncopation, Body-Movement and Pleasure in Groove Music.
<p>Correction: Syncopation, Body-Movement and Pleasure in Groove Music</p
Methodological approach for determining the Minimal Important Difference and Minimal Important Change scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-HN43) exemplified by the Swallowing scale
Purpose The aim of this study was to explore what methods should be used
to determine the minimal important difference (MID) and minimal
important change (MIC) in scores for the European Organisation for
Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module, the EORTC
QLQ-HN43. Methods In an international multi-centre study, patients with
head and neck cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-HN43 before the onset of
treatment (t1), three months after baseline (t2), and six months after
baseline (t3). The methods explored for determining the MID were: (1)
group comparisons based on performance status; (2) 0.5 and 0.3 standard
deviation and standard error of the mean. The methods examined for the
MIC were patients' subjective change ratings and receiver-operating
characteristics (ROC) curves, predictive modelling, standard deviation,
and standard error of the mean. The EORTC QLQ-HN43 Swallowing scale was
used to investigate these methods. Results From 28 hospitals in 18
countries, 503 patients participated. Correlations with the performance
status were |r|< 0.4 in 17 out of 19 scales; hence, performance status
was regarded as an unsuitable anchor. The ROC approach yielded an
implausible MIC and was also discarded. The remaining approaches worked
well and delivered MID values ranging from 10 to 14; the MIC for
deterioration ranged from 8 to 16 and the MIC for improvement from - 3
to - 14. Conclusions For determining MIDs of the remaining scales of the
EORTC QLQ-HN43, we will omit comparisons of groups based on the
Karnofsky Performance Score. Other external anchors are needed instead.
Distribution-based methods worked well and will be applied as a starting
strategy for analyses. For the calculation of MICs, subjective change
ratings, predictive modelling, and standard-deviation based approaches
are suitable methods whereas ROC analyses seem to be inappropriate