PMID- 34215267
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20210719
LR  - 20210719
IS  - 1477-7525 (Electronic)
IS  - 1477-7525 (Linking)
VI  - 19
IP  - 1
DP  - 2021 Jul 2
TI  - Exploration of the methods of establishing the minimum clinical important 
      difference based on anchor and its application in the quality of life measurement 
      scale QLICP-ES (V2.0) for esophageal cancer.
PG  - 173
LID - 10.1186/s12955-021-01808-7 [doi]
LID - 173
AB  - BACKGROUND: The development of the minimum clinical important difference (MCID) 
      can make it easier for researchers or doctors to judge the significance of 
      research results and the effect of intervention measures, and improve the 
      evaluation system of efficacy. This paper is aimed to calculate the MCID based on 
      anchor and to develop MCID for esophageal cancer scale (QLICP-ES). METHODS: The 
      item Q29 (How do you evaluate your overall health in the past week with 7 grades 
      answers from 1 very poor to 7 excellent)of EORTC QLQ-C30 was used as the 
      subjective anchor to calculate the score difference between each domain at 
      discharge and admission. MCID was established according to two standards, "one 
      grade difference"(A) and "at least one grade difference"(B), and developed by 
      three methods: anchor-based method, ROC curve method and multiple linear 
      regression models. In terms of anchor-based method, the mean of the absolute 
      value of the difference before and after treatments is MCID. The point with the 
      best sensitivity and specificity-Yorden index at the ROC curve is MCID for ROC 
      curve method. In contrast, the predicted mean value based on a multiple linear 
      regression model and the parameters of each factor is MCID. RESULTS: Most of the 
      correlation coefficients of Q29 and various domains of the QLICP-ES were higher 
      than 0.30. The rank of MCID values determined by different methods and standards 
      were as follows: standard B > standard A, anchor-based method > ROC curve 
      method > multiple linear regression models. The recommended MCID values of 
      physical domain, psychological domain, social domain, common symptom and 
      side-effects domain, the specific domain and the overall of the QLICP-ES were 
      7.8, 9.7, 4.7, 3.6, 4.3, 2.3 and 2.9, respectively. CONCLUSION: Different methods 
      have their own advantages and disadvantages, and also different definitions and 
      standards can be adopted according to research purposes and methods. A lot of 
      different MCID values were presented in this paper so that it can be easy and 
      convenient to select by users.
FAU - Ren, Dandan
AU  - Ren D
AD  - School of Humanities and Management, Research Center for Quality of Life and 
      Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, 523808, China.
FAU - Wu, Ting
AU  - Wu T
AD  - School of Humanities and Management, Research Center for Quality of Life and 
      Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, 523808, China.
FAU - Wan, Chonghua
AU  - Wan C
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0002-7323-6837
AD  - School of Humanities and Management, Research Center for Quality of Life and 
      Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, 523808, China. 
      wanchh@hotmail.com.
FAU - Li, Gaofeng
AU  - Li G
AD  - The Third Affiliated Hospital, Kunming Medical University (Yunnan Tumor 
      Hospital), Kunming, 650106, China.
FAU - Qi, Yanbo
AU  - Qi Y
AD  - The Center for Response and Management of Emergence Public Health Event, the 
      Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Yunnan Province, Kunming, 650022, 
      China.
FAU - Fang, Yujing
AU  - Fang Y
AD  - Department of Thoracic Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 
      Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer 
      Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
FAU - Zhong, Jiudi
AU  - Zhong J
AD  - Department of Thoracic Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, 
      Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer 
      Medicine, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
LA  - eng
GR  - 71974040/National Natural Science Foundation of China/
GR  - 81273185/National Natural Science Foundation of China/
GR  - 2018KZDXM037/Features Innovative Projects of Key Platform and Major Scientific 
      Research Project of Universities in Guangdong Province/
GR  - 2017KZDXM040/Features Innovative Projects of Key Platform and Major Scientific 
      Research Project of Universities in Guangdong Province/
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20210702
PL  - England
TA  - Health Qual Life Outcomes
JT  - Health and quality of life outcomes
JID - 101153626
SB  - IM
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Aged, 80 and over
MH  - *Esophageal Neoplasms
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Linear Models
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - *Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
MH  - Psychometrics
MH  - *Quality of Life
MH  - ROC Curve
MH  - Sensitivity and Specificity
PMC - PMC8254221
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Anchor-based method
OT  - Esophageal cancer
OT  - Multiple linear regression model
OT  - Quality of life
OT  - ROC curve
OT  - The minimum clinical important difference
COIS- The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
EDAT- 2021/07/04 06:00
MHDA- 2021/07/20 06:00
PMCR- 2021/07/02
CRDT- 2021/07/03 05:24
PHST- 2020/08/28 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2021/06/18 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2021/07/03 05:24 [entrez]
PHST- 2021/07/04 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2021/07/20 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2021/07/02 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - 10.1186/s12955-021-01808-7 [pii]
AID - 1808 [pii]
AID - 10.1186/s12955-021-01808-7 [doi]
PST - epublish
SO  - Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021 Jul 2;19(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s12955-021-01808-7.