Preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Aims: The aims of this study were to validate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds for Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores following arthroscopic Bankart repair, and to identify preoperative threshold values of these scores that could predict the achievement of MCID and PASS. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 131 consecutive patients with anterior shoulder instability who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between January 2020 and January 2023. Inclusion criteria required at least one episode of shoulder instability and a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. Preoperative and one-year postoperative scores were assessed. MCID and PASS were estimated using distribution-based and anchor-based methods, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis determined preoperative patient-reported outcome measure thresholds predictive of achieving MCID and PASS. Results: MCID thresholds were determined as 169.6, 6.8, 7.2, and 1.1 for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS, respectively. PASS thresholds were calculated as ≤ 480, ≥ 80, ≥ 87, and ≤ 1 for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS, respectively. Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 760 (WOSI) and ≤ 50 (Rowe) predicted achieving MCID for WOSI score (p < 0.001). Preoperative thresholds of ≤ 60 (ASES) and ≥ 2 (VAS) predicted achieving MCID for VAS score (p < 0.001). A preoperative threshold of ≥ 40 (Rowe) predicted achieving PASS for Rowe score (p = 0.005). Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 50 (ASES; p = 0.002) and ≤ 2 (VAS; p < 0.001) predicted achieving PASS for the ASES score. Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 43 (ASES; p = 0.046) and ≤ 4 (VAS; p = 0.024) predicted achieving PASS for the VAS. Conclusion: This study defined MCID and PASS values for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS scores in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. Higher preoperative functional scores may reduce the likelihood of achieving MCID but increase the likelihood of achieving the PASS. These findings provide valuable guidance for surgeons to counsel patients realistically regarding their expectations.

Establishing minimal clinically important differences for the quality of life scale QLICD-SLE for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus based on ROC curve.

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an important concept with big appeal in a field struggling to interpret quality of life (QOL) and other patient-reported outcomes (PRO), is also a bridge between statistics and clinical medicine. This study uses the ROC curve to formulate the MCID value of the Quality of Life Instruments for Chronic Diseases of Systemic lupus erythematosus (QLICD-SLE V2.0) scale. Using the representative item "In general, would you say your health is" of the MOS item short form health survey(SF-36) as an anchor, the questionnaire of QLICD-SLE V2.0 and the anchor item were used to investigate the patients on the first day of hospitalization, and the day before the patient was discharged. 279 patients with lupus erythematosus were participated in this longitudinal follow-up study. The ROC curve was constructed by using the classification based on the anchor item as the gold standard and the difference score of the scale as the test variable. The cut-off point corresponding to the maximum value of the Youden index in the ROC curve is taken as the minimum clinical importance difference (MCID) value of the QLICD-SLE (V2.0) scale. The Results showed that the MCID of physical domain, psychological domain, social domain, general module, specific module and QLICD-SLE (V2.0) total scale are 8.3, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 9.2 and 3.2, respectively. Area under the ROC curve of QLICD-SLE (V2.0) is 0.898, P (Area = 0.5) < 0.001, the sensitivity is 100%, the specificity is 66.9%. It concluded that if the total scores after treatments changes at least 3.2 points positively, the treatment intervention can be considered as clinically significant. It is more convincing to use the corresponding cut-off point as the MCID for ROC curve method can visualize the sensitivity and specificity.

Investigating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for AzBio and CNC Speech Recognition Scores.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for cochlear implant-related speech recognition scores, which have not been previously reported. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Eight hundred sixty-three adult patients who underwent cochlear implantation between 2009 and 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MCID values for consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word scores and AzBio sentences in quiet and noise scores using distribution-based methods (half-standard deviation, standard error of measurement, Cohen's d, and minimum detectable change). RESULTS: In this cohort, the mean preoperative CNC word score was 13.9% (SD, 15.6). The mean preoperative AzBio sentences in quiet score was 19.1% (SD, 22.1), and the mean preoperative AzBio sentences in noise score was 13.0% (SD, 12.0). The average MCID values of several distribution-based methods for CNC, AzBio in quiet, and AzBio in noise were 7.4%, 9.0%, and 4.9%, respectively. Anchor-based approaches with the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of hearing patient-reported measure did not have strong classification accuracy across CNC or AzBio in quiet and noise scores (ROC areas under-the-curve ≤0.69), highlighting weak associations between improvements in speech recognition scores and subjective hearing-related abilities. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimation of MCID values for CNC and AzBio in quiet and noise allows for enhanced patient counseling and clinical interpretation of past, current, and future research studies assessing cochlear implant outcomes.

The minimal important difference in obsessive-compulsive disorder: An analysis of double-blind SSRI trials in adults.

BACKGROUND: The change in symptoms necessary to be clinically relevant in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is currently unknown. In this study, we aimed to create an empirically validated threshold for clinical significance or minimal important difference (MID). METHODS: We analyzed individual participant data from short-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled registration trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in adult OCD patients. Data were collected from baseline to week 12. We used equipercentile linking to equate changes in the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale to changes in the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS). We defined the MID as the YBOCS change linked to a CGI improvement of 3 (defined as "minimal improvement"). RESULTS: We included 7 trials with a total of 1216 patients. The CGI-scores and YBOCS were moderately to highly correlated. The MID corresponded to 4.9 YBOCS points (95% CI 4.4-5.4) for the full sample, or a 24% YBOCS-decrease compared to baseline. The MID varied with baseline severity, being lower in the group with mild symptoms and higher in the group with severe symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: By linking the YBOCS to the CGI-I, this is the first study to propose an MID in OCD trials. Having a clearly defined MID can guide future clinical research and help interpretation of efficacy of existing interventions. Our results are clinician-based; however, there is further need for patient-reported outcomes as anchor to the YBOCS.

Pre-operative EQ-5D-5L is a strong predictor of meaningful improvement in quality of life following primary total knee arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Predicting which patients will get meaningful benefit from total knee arthroplasty remains a challenge. Our aim was to assess if pre-operative quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level instrument; EQ-5D-5L) can predict the likelihood of a patient achieving post-operative improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) following total knee arthroplasty to a level of minimum clinically-important difference (MCID). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort of total knee arthroplasty patients. EQ-5D-5L and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were recorded pre-operatively, 6 months and 2 years post-operatively. The primary outcome measure was achievement of MCID in EQ-5D-5L at 2 years. Multivariable analysis through multiple logistic regression was performed to assess for independent predictors of MCID in EQ-5D-5L, OKS and re-operation at 2 years. RESULTS: 400 patients were included, with 57% female and a mean age of 66 years. Pre-operative EQ-5D-5L was the only strong predictor of post-operative EQ-5D-5L MCID (OR: 0.016, CI: 0.004 to 0.06), when adjusted for age, gender, BMI, ASA, smoking status and surgeon grade. The optimal pre-operative EQ-5D-5L threshold was found to be 0.53 by Youden's index, with a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 73%. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative quality of life as measured by EQ-5D-5L is a strong independent predictor of reaching MCID in EQ-5D-5L following total knee arthroplasty. Those with worse EQ-5D-5L are more likely to gain meaningful benefit from knee arthroplasty.

Estimating the minimally important difference for the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in cancer.

BACKGROUND: The minimal important difference (MID) is a useful tool to interpret changes in patients' health-related quality of life. This study aims to estimate MIDs for interpreting within-patient change for both components of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire [EQ-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) and utility index] and domains of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) for cancer patients. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Cancer 2015 dataset, a longitudinal cohort of Australian cancer patients. Anchor-based approaches were used to estimate MIDs for the EQ-5D-5L index-based utility index [Australia and the United States (US) tariff sets], EQ-VAS scores, and the EORTC QLQ-C30. Clinical [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status] and patient-reported (items 29 and 30 of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-VAS) anchors were assessed for appropriateness by their correlation strength. Clinical change groups (CCGs) were defined a priori for improvement and deterioration based on estimates used in previous literature. MIDs were estimated via linear regression and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: For the index-based utility scores in Australia, the anchor-defined MID estimates were 0.01 to 0.06 for improvement and - 0.04 to -0.03 for deterioration, with a weighted value of 0.03 for improvement and deterioration. The EQ-VAS MID estimate was 5 points for both improvement and deterioration. For the EORTC QLQ-C30, changes of at least 3.64 (improvement) and - 4.28 (deterioration) units on the physical functioning scale, 6.31 (improvement) and - 7.11 (deterioration) units on the role functioning scale, 4.65 (improvement) and - 3.41 (deterioration) units on the emotional functioning scale, and 5.41 (improvement) and - 5.56 (deterioration) units on the social functioning scale were estimated to be meaningful. CONCLUSION: This study identified lower MIDs for the EQ-5D-5L utility index, EQ-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 domain scores, than those reported previously. The use of a real-world cancer-specific panel dataset may reflect smaller MID estimates that are more applicable to cancer patients in the clinical practice, rather than using MIDs that have been estimated from clinical trials.

Estimation of minimal clinically important difference for 6-minute walking distance in patients with acute stroke using anchor-based methods and credibility instruments.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke impairs a patient's ability to walk. In patients with acute stroke, a 6-min walking distance (6MWD) is recommended to assess walking function. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation; however, the MCID for 6MWD has not been adequately validated. This study aimed to estimate the MCID of 6MWD, a measure of walking endurance, in patients with acute stroke using anchor-based methods. METHODS: Based on the change in 6MWD from baseline to the follow-up measurement 2 weeks later, the MCID was estimated using anchor-based methods (receiver operator operating characteristic curves, predictive and adjustment models) with a patient- and therapist-rated global rating of change scale (p-GRC, t-GRC) as external anchors. The accuracy of "meaningful change" was estimated from the area under the curve. Using MCID's credibility instruments, the credibility of each anchor was evaluated. Using the credibility instrument, high credibility was defined as satisfying 3/5 of the Core criteria and 6/9 of all criteria. RESULTS: The analysis included 58 patients. The MCID for each anchor was 78.7-100.0 m for p-GRC, and 95.2-99.5 m for t-GRC. The p-GRC demonstrated excellent accuracy (area under the curve >0.8). With p-GRC as anchors, over 50% of patients showed improvement. The p-GRC satisfied the core criterion of 3/5 and all criteria of 6/9 on the reliability instrument. The t-GRC demonstrated low reliability and satisfied the core criterion of 2/5 and all criteria of 3/9. DISCUSSION: Since the percentage of improved groups exceeded 50%, the adjusted model was useful in the anchor-based method. Therapists may not accurately capture patient fatigue and subjective symptoms, potentially affecting the correlation between the 6MWD change score and the t-GRC and, consequently, the reliability instrument. The p-GRC showed high accuracy and reliability; therefore, the MCID was estimated to be 78.7 m.

The gap between statistical and clinical significance: time to pay attention to clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome measures of insomnia.

BACKGROUND: Appropriately defining and using the minimal important change (MIC) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) are crucial for determining whether the results are clinically significant. The aim of this study is to survey the status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and interpretation of MIC/MCID values. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to survey the status of RCTs for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and appropriate interpretation of MIC/MCID values. A literature search was conducted by searching the main sleep medicine journals indexed in PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify a broad range of search terms. We included RCTs with no restriction on the intervention. The included studies used the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) or the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire as the outcome measures. RESULTS: 81 eligible studies were identified, and more than one-third of the included studies used MIC/MCID (n = 31, 38.3%). Among them, 21 studies with ISI as the outcome used MIC defined as a relative decrease ranging from 3 to 8 points. The most frequently used MIC value was a 6-point decrease (n = 7), followed by 8-point (n = 6) and 7-point decrease (n = 4), a 4 to 5-points decrease (n = 3), and a 30% reduction from baseline; 6 studies used MCID values, ranging from 2.8 to 4 points. The most frequently used MCID value was a 4-point decrease in the ISI (n = 4). 4 studies with PSQI as the outcome used a 3-point change as the MIC (n = 2) and a 2.5 to 2.7-point difference as MCID (n = 2). 4 non-inferiority design studies considered interval estimation when drawing clinically significant conclusions in their MCID usage. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of consistent MIC/MCID interpretation and usage in outcome measures for insomnia highlights the urgent need for further efforts to address this issue and improve reporting practices.

The Association of Preoperative Hip Pain Duration With Delayed Achievement of Clinically Significant Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hip pain ≥2 years before hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) have been shown to achieve inferior short-term and midterm outcomes compared with patients with a shorter pain duration, although there is limited literature that has evaluated the time to achieve clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) in this population. PURPOSE: To compare the time to achieve CSOs after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS in patients with and without prolonged hip pain and to identify independent predictors of the delayed achievement of CSOs. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS between January 2012 and July 2019 with 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS) scores were identified. Patients with prolonged hip pain (preoperative duration ≥2 years) were propensity score matched to a control group (preoperative duration <2 years), controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). The times to achieve the minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State were compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Multivariate Cox regression considering age, sex, BMI, pain duration, activity level, and chondral status was used to identify independent predictors of the delayed achievement of CSOs. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients with prolonged hip pain were matched to 179 control patients (mean pain duration, 60.5 ± 51.2 vs 9.7 ± 5.1 months, respectively; P < .001) of a similar age, sex, and BMI (P≥ .488) with similar baseline HOS-ADL and HOS-SS scores (P≥ .971). The prolonged hip pain group showed delayed achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for both the HOS-ADL and HOS-SS on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P≤ .020). On multivariate Cox regression, hip pain duration ≥2 years was shown to be an independent predictor of the delayed achievement of CSOs, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.32 to 1.65 (P≤ .029). Additional independent predictors of the delayed achievement of CSOs included increasing age, increasing BMI, female sex, self-endorsed weekly participation in physical activity, and high-grade chondral defects (hazard ratio range, 1.01-4.89; P≤ .045). CONCLUSION: Findings from this study demonstrate that preoperative hip pain duration ≥2 years was an independent predictor of the delayed achievement of CSOs after primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS.

Determination of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for Ocular Subjective Responses.

Purpose: To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for contact lens (CL)-related subjective responses and explore whether MCID values differ between subjective responses and study designs. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of data from seven one-week bilateral crossover studies and 14 one-day contralateral CL studies. For comfort, dryness, vision, or ease of insertion, participants rated on a 0-100 visual analogue scale (VAS) and indicated lens preference on a five-point Likert scale featuring strong, slight, and no preferences. For each criterion, four MCID estimates were calculated and averaged: mean VAS score difference for "slight preference," lower limit of 95% confidence interval VAS score difference for "slight preference," difference in mean VAS score difference between "slight" and "no preference" and 0.5 standard deviation of VAS scores. Results: The four calculation methods generated a small range of MCID values. For bilateral studies, the averaged MCID was 7.2 (range 5.4-8.8) for comfort, 8.1 (5.2-10.6) for dryness, 7.1 (5.5-9.3) for vision and 7.6 (6.0-10.5) for ease of insertion. For contralateral studies, the averaged MCID was 6.9 (6.1-7.6) for comfort at insertion and 7.5 (6.8-8.2) for end-of-day comfort. Conclusions: This work demonstrated very similar MCID values across subjective responses and study designs, in a population of habitual soft CL wearers. In all cases, MCID values were on average seven units on a 0 to 100 VAS. Translational Relevance: This work provides MCID values which are important for interpreting ocular subjective responses and planning clinical studies.

A scoping review of the use of minimally important difference of EQ-5D utility index and EQ-VAS scores in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Estimates of minimally important differences (MID) can assist interpretation of data collected using patient-reported outcomes (PRO), but variability exists in the emphasis placed on MIDs in health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. This study aimed to identify to what extent information on the MID of a commonly used PRO, the EQ-5D, is required and utilised by selected HTA agencies. METHODS: Technology appraisal (TA) documents from HTA agencies in England, France, Germany, and the US between 2019 and 2021 were reviewed to identify documents which discussed MID of EQ-5D data as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint. RESULTS: Of 151 TAs utilising EQ-5D as a COA endpoint, 58 (38%) discussed MID of EQ-5D data. Discussion of MID was most frequent in Germany, in 75% (n = 12/16) of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) and 44% (n = 34/78) of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, (IQWiG) TAs. MID was predominantly applied to the EQ-VAS (n = 50), most frequently using a threshold of > 7 or > 10 points (n = 13). G-BA and IQWiG frequently criticised MID analyses, particularly the sources of MID thresholds for the EQ-VAS, as they were perceived as being unsuitable for assessing the validity of MID. CONCLUSION: MID of the EQ-5D was not frequently discussed outside of Germany, and this did not appear to negatively impact decision-making of these HTA agencies. While MID thresholds were often applied to EQ-VAS data in German TAs, analyses were frequently rejected in benefit assessments due to concerns with their validity. Companies should pre-specify analyses of continuous data in statistical analysis plans to be considered for treatment benefit assessment in Germany.

Clinically important changes and adverse events with centre-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic respiratory disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: To determine the proportion of people who achieve minimal clinically important differences (MCID) with centre-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation and to synthesise data on adverse events.Methods: Cochrane reviews and electronic databases were searched to identify randomised trials comparing centre-based to home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or either model to usual care, in people with chronic respiratory disease. Primary outcomes were the proportion of participants achieving MCIDs in exercise capacity and disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes were symptoms and adverse events. Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 and GRADE were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence respectively.Results: Forty-nine trials were eligible. Compared to usual care, a higher proportion of pulmonary rehabilitation participants achieved the MCID for exercise capacity (6MWT: 47% vs 20%, p = 0.11), dyspnoea (43% vs 29%, p = 0.0001), fatigue (48% vs 27%, p = 0.0002) and emotional function (37% vs 25%, p = 0.02), with all of these between group differences statistically significant except for exercise capacity. There were no differences between centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in the proportion of participants who achieved MCIDs (34%- 58% across studies). Ninety percent of trials reported no adverse events. Certainty of evidence was low-to- moderate with all outcomes except for CRQ-mastery (centre-based vs home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD), ESWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD) and 6MWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in bronchiectasis) where evidence was very uncertain.Discussion: Clinically meaningful outcomes are achieved by similar proportions of participants in centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with few adverse events. Reporting of trial outcomes according to MCIDs is necessary for informed decision making regarding pulmonary rehabilitation models.

Establishing minimal clinically important differences and patient acceptable symptom state thresholds following birmingham hip resurfacing.

INTRODUCTION: Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) has emerged as a compelling and innovative alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially among young, active patients. However, the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds have not yet been determined for patients undergoing BHR. Therefore, the current study aimed to (1) determine the MCID and PASS thresholds for both the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)-Pain and HOOS physical function shortform (PS), for patients who underwent BHR; and (2) identify factors influencing the achievement of MCID and PASS for HOOS-Pain and HOOS-PS. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from patients undergoing BHR was analyzed. Patients with osteoarthritis and completed preoperative and 1-year postoperative PROMs were included. Distribution-based and anchored-based approaches were used to estimate MCID and PASS, respectively. The optimal cut-off point for PASS thresholds was calculated using the Youden index. RESULTS: MCID for HOOS-Pain and PS were calculated to be 9.2 and 9.3, respectively. The PASS threshold for HOOS-Pain and PS were ≥ 77.7 and ≥ 87.3, respectively. The current study identified several factors affecting postoperative achievement of thresholds. Baseline Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores were a predictor for achieving MCID for postoperative HOOS-Pain, achieving MCID for postoperative HOOS-PS, achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-Pain, and achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-PS. Furthermore, baseline HOOS-Pain was a significant predictor for achieving MCID for postoperative HOOS-PS, achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-Pain, and achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-PS. CONCLUSIONS: MCID and PASS thresholds were established for HOOS-Pain and PS domains following BHR with most patients achieving these clinically meaningful benchmarks. Additionally, several factors affecting achievement of MCID and PASS were identified, including modifiable risk factors that may allow clinicians to implement optimization strategies and further improve outcomes.

How Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State Relate to Patient Expectations and Satisfaction in Spine Surgery: A Review.

This narrative review seeks to enhance our comprehension of how Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) values in established Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for spine surgery correspond with patient preoperative expectations and postoperative satisfaction. Through our literature search, we found that both MCID and PASS serve as dependable indicators of patient expectations. However, MCID may be more susceptible to a floor effect. This implies that PASS may offer a more accurate reflection of how patients anticipate surgery to address their symptoms. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that achieving MCID or PASS may not be an absolute prerequisite for patients to be satisfied with their treatment.

The Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST): Clinically meaningful response threshold in patients with major depressive disorder receiving antidepressant treatment.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment is common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). The Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) provides a detailed clinician-rated assessment of functioning across multiple aspects of daily life. This study aimed to establish clinically relevant response thresholds for the FAST in patients with MDD receiving antidepressant treatment. METHODS: Data were derived from three 8-week clinical trials of antidepressant therapy in patients with MDD that included assessment of functioning using the FAST as a pre-specified endpoint. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and threshold for response in terms of change in FAST total score were determined using anchor-based methods. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of antidepressant treatment, the mean reduction in FAST total score in patients considered clinically minimally improved (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement [CGI-I] score of 3) was 7-9 points (~20 % reduction). The threshold for functional response (reduction in FAST total score from baseline in patients with a CGI-I score of ≤2 at week 8) was 16-19 points (~50 % reduction). The threshold for functional response was higher in patients with MDD and comorbid generalized anxiety disorder than in those with MDD alone (mean reduction in FAST total score at 8 weeks: 26 points [63 %]). LIMITATIONS: Short-term studies. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide further validation of the FAST for assessing functioning in patients with MDD. In patients with MDD, the suggested MCID for FAST total score is 7-9 points and the proposed threshold for response is a reduction from baseline of approximately 50 %.

Minimal clinically important change in the MADRS anhedonia factor score: A pooled analysis of open-label studies with vortioxetine in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: It is previously reported that the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) anhedonia factor score is correlated with scales assessing function in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: This was an analysis of a database including 5 long-term, extension studies of prior controlled trials, which evaluated the effects of open-label, maintenance treatment with vortioxetine (5-20 mg/day over 1-year) in adults with MDD. We assessed the association of changes in MADRS anhedonia factor scores with changes in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), Sheehan Disability scale (SDS), and the SF-36. A minimal clinically important change (MCIC) for MADRS anhedonia factor scores was determined using the CGI-S as anchor. RESULTS: In patients who had completed the prior controlled studies, MADRS anhedonia factor scores continued to improve over 1-year of maintenance treatment (mean ± SE change from baseline of -6.2 ± 0.2 at Month 12). Change in MADRS anhedonia factors score correlated with change in CGI-S (Week 4, r = 0.71), SDS (Week 24 r = 0.60) and SF-36 domains (Week 24 r = -0.19 to -0.61) scores. Using a 1 level improvement on CGI-S as anchor, the MCIC for MADRS anhedonia factor scores versus baseline were - 4.6 at Week 4, -5.5 at Week 24, and - 5.3 at Week 52. LIMITATIONS: Neither the MADRS scale, nor the primary studies, were specifically designed to assess anhedonia. CONCLUSIONS: These open-label data suggest that patients treated with vortioxetine continued to show clinically relevant improvements in their anhedonia over 1-year of maintenance therapy. Improvements in anhedonia correlated with improvements in measures of functioning and quality of life.

Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Responsiveness of the Chinese Version of Zurich Chronic Middle Ear Inventory (ZCMEI-21-Chn): A Prospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and assess the responsiveness of the Chinese version of Zurich Chronic Middle Ear Inventory (ZCMEI-21-Chn). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter study. SETTING: Four Chinese tertiary referral centers admitting patients nationwide. PATIENTS: 230 adult patients with chronic otitis media (COM) undergoing tympanoplasty. INTERVENTION: Patients were required to complete the ZCMEI-21-Chn to measure health-related quality of life both preoperatively and postoperatively. An anchor-based method was used to determine the MCID of the derivative cohort by including the Global Rating of Change Questionnaire as an anchor. The generalizability and consistency with functional outcomes of the MCID estimates were externally examined in a validation cohort using a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: A total of 161 and 69 patients were included in the derivative and validation cohort. The mean preoperative and postoperative ZCMEI-21-Chn total scores were 28.4 (standard deviation [SD] 14.5) and 17.5 (SD 12.6). The mean change in ZCMEI-21-Chn score was 10.9 (SD 14.3, p < 0.001). The MCIDs of the ZCMEI-21-Chn for improvement and deterioration were estimated at 13 (SD 13.0) and -7 (SD 12.9), accordingly. For patients who have reported an improved health-related quality of life, a cutoff value of 15.6 dB HL for elevation of the air-conducted hearing threshold was noticed. However, change of clinical importance judged according to MCID and Japan Otological Society criteria disagreed with each other, notably with a Cohen's kappa ( κ ) of 0.14 ( p = 0.21) in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to establish the MCID of a COM-specific questionnaire in Chinese. For the COM population undergoing surgical intervention, MCID values of 13 for improvement and -7 for deterioration are recommended. The results were externally validated to be generalizable to nationwide usage, yet distinguishable from the audiological criteria. The availability of the MCID greatly adds to the clinical utility of the ZCMEI-21-Chn by enabling a clinically meaningful interpretation of its score changes.