Kosinski et al. [ 26] used five different anchors to estimate the minimally important differences for the SF-36 in a clinical trial of people with rheumatoid arthritis, and found different MIC values dependent on the anchor used.
No papers that fitted our inclusion criteria reported on the proportion reporting a specified threshold (e.g.42 points on the OHS as a desired outcome [ 24]), as represented by grid C. Five studies, grid D, compared different ways of deriving meaningful benchmarks in change scores based on minimally important differences (MIDs).
To estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using anchor- and distribution-based methods.
To combine anchor- and distribution-based approaches to identify minimally important differences (MIDs) for the short-form six-dimension utility index (SF-6D) and to identify variables associated with self-reported health status change.
We combined anchor- and distribution-based methods to establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS -Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer PROMIS -Cancer
Our objectives were to combine distribution-based and two anchor-based approaches to identify minimally important differences (MIDs) for the 27-item Trial Outcome Index (TOI), the seven-item Social Well-Being (SWB) subscale, and the six-item Emotional Well-being (EWB) subscale from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biological Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument.
When analysing cost-effectiveness estimates for CR evaluations, it is key to consider input uncertainty on results, and observe whether statistical significance or minimally important differences are achieved.
As suggested by several authors, evaluations derived from patient reported outcomes on pain should be considered within a broader concept of "minimally important differences" and of "thresholds of improvement" and should be considered when evaluating success of interventions (Busse et al., 2015).
Minimally important differences (MID's) have been determined for the FACT-B and FACT-Fatigue [ 60].
The minimally important differences for the UPDRS have been reported in two studies.
These between-group differences were chosen based upon minimally important differences for patients with low back pain [ 19].
