TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinically relevant differences in COPD health status
T2 - Systematic review and triangulation
AU - Alma, Harma
AU - De Jong, Corina
AU - Tsiligianni, Ioanna
AU - Sanderman, Robbert
AU - Kocks, Janwillem
AU - van der Molen, Thys
PY - 2018/9/1
Y1 - 2018/9/1
N2 - The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) quantifies when measured differences can be considered clinically relevant. This study aims to review and triangulate MCIDs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) health status tools. A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library was conducted (Prospero #CRD42015023221). Study details, patient characteristics, MCID methodology and estimates were assessed and extracted by two authors. A triangulated mean was obtained for each tool’s MCID, with two-thirds weighting for anchor-based and one-third for distribution-based results. This was then multiplied by a weighted factor based upon the study size and quality rating. Overall, 785 records were reviewed of which 21 studies were included for analysis. MCIDs of 12 tools were presented. General quality and risk of bias were average to good. Triangulated MCIDs for the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were −2.54, −0.43 and −7.43 for improvement. Too few and/or too diverse studies were present to triangulate MCIDs of other tools. Evidence for the MCID of the CAT and CCQ was strong and triangulation was valid. Currently used MCIDs in clinical practice for the SGRQ (4) and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (0.5) did not match the reviewed content, for which the MCIDs were much higher. Using too low MCIDs may lead to an overestimation of the interpretation of treatment effects. MCIDs for deterioration were scarce, which highlights the need for more research.
AB - The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) quantifies when measured differences can be considered clinically relevant. This study aims to review and triangulate MCIDs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) health status tools. A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library was conducted (Prospero #CRD42015023221). Study details, patient characteristics, MCID methodology and estimates were assessed and extracted by two authors. A triangulated mean was obtained for each tool’s MCID, with two-thirds weighting for anchor-based and one-third for distribution-based results. This was then multiplied by a weighted factor based upon the study size and quality rating. Overall, 785 records were reviewed of which 21 studies were included for analysis. MCIDs of 12 tools were presented. General quality and risk of bias were average to good. Triangulated MCIDs for the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were −2.54, −0.43 and −7.43 for improvement. Too few and/or too diverse studies were present to triangulate MCIDs of other tools. Evidence for the MCID of the CAT and CCQ was strong and triangulation was valid. Currently used MCIDs in clinical practice for the SGRQ (4) and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (0.5) did not match the reviewed content, for which the MCIDs were much higher. Using too low MCIDs may lead to an overestimation of the interpretation of treatment effects. MCIDs for deterioration were scarce, which highlights the need for more research.
KW - n/a OA procedure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052935254&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1183/13993003.00412-2018
DO - 10.1183/13993003.00412-2018
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85052935254
SN - 0903-1936
VL - 52
JO - European respiratory journal
JF - European respiratory journal
IS - 3
M1 - 1800412
ER -