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

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.

Minimum clinical important difference for resilience scale specific to cancer: a prospective analysis

Background The minimum clinical important differences (MCIDs) of resilience instruments in patients with cancer have not been comprehensively described. This study was designed to evaluate MCIDs of 10-item and 25-item resilience scales specific to cancer (RS-SC-10 and RS-SC-25). Methods From June 2015 to December 2018, RS-SCs were longitudinally measured in 765 patients with different cancer diagnoses at baseline (T0) and 3 months later (T1). The EORTC QLQ-C30, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Allostatic Load Index were measured concurrently as anchors. Anchor-based methods (linear regression, within-group), distribution-based methods(within-group), and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs, within-subject) were performed to evaluate the MCIDs. Results 623 of 765 (84.1%) patients had paired RS-SCs scores. Moderate correlations were identified between the change in RS-SCs and change in anchors (r = 0.38–0.44, all p < 0.001). Linear regression estimated + 8.9 and − 6.7 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and + 3.4 and − 2.5 for RS-SC-10. Distribution-based methods estimated + 9.9 and − 9.9 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and + 4.0 and − 4.0 for RS-SC-10. ROC estimated + 5.5 and − 4.5 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and + 2.0 and − 1.5 for RS-SC-10. Conclusions The most reliable MCID is around 5 points for RS-SC-25 and 2 points for RS-SC-10. RS-SCs are more responsive to the worsening status of resilience in patients with cancer and these estimates could be useful in future resilience-based intervention trials.

Minimum Clinical Important Difference for Resilience Scale Specific to Cancer: A Prospective Analysis

Background: The minimum clinical important differences (MCIDs) of resilience instruments in patients with cancer have not been comprehensively described. This study was designed to evaluate MCIDs of 10-item and 25-item resilience scales specific to cancer (RS-SC-10 and RS-SC-25).Methods: From June 2015 to December 2018, RS-SCs were longitudinally measured in 765 patients with different cancer diagnoses at baseline (T0) and 3 months later (T1). The EORTC QLQ-C30, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Allostatic Load Index were measured concurrently as anchors. Anchor-based methods (linear regression, within-group), distribution-based methods(within-group), and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs, within-subject) were performed to evaluate the MCIDs.Results: 623 of 765 (84.1%) patients had paired RS-SCs scores. Moderate correlations were identified between the change in RS-SCs and change in anchors (r= 0.38-0.44, all p<0.001). Linear regression estimated +8.9 and -6.7 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and +3.4 and -2.5 for RS-SC-10. Distribution-based methods estimated +9.9 and -9.9 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and +4.0 and -4.0 for RS-SC-10. ROC estimated +5.5 and -4.5 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and +2.0 and -1.5 for RS-SC-10.Conclusions: The most reliable MCID is around 5 points for RS-SC-25 and 2 points for RS-SC-10. RS-SCs are more responsive to the worsening status of resilience in patients with cancer and these estimates could be useful in future resilience-based intervention trials.

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

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: Q29 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 model. 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 model. 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.

Minimum Clinical Important Difference for Resilience Scale Specific to Cancer: A Prospective Analysis

Background: The minimum clinical important differences (MCIDs) of resilience instruments in patients with cancer have not been comprehensively described. This study was designed to evaluate MCIDs of 10-item and 25-item resilience scales specific to cancer (RS-SC-10 and RS-SC-25).Methods: From June 2015 to December 2018, RS-SCs were longitudinally measured in 765 patients with different cancer diagnoses at baseline (T0) and 3 months later (T1). The EORTC QLQ-C30, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Allostatic Load Index were measured concurrently as anchors. Anchor-based methods (linear regression, within-group), distribution-based methods(within-group), and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs, within-subject) were performed to evaluate the MCIDs.Results: 623 of 765 (84.1%) patients had paired RS-SCs scores. Moderate correlations were identified between the change in RS-SCs and change in anchors (r= 0.38-0.44, all p<0.001). Linear regression estimated +8.9 and -6.7 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and +3.4 and -2.5 for RS-SC-10. Distribution-based methods estimated +9.9 and -9.9 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and +4.0 and -4.0 for RS-SC-10. ROC estimated +5.5 and -4.5 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and +2.0 and -1.5 for RS-SC-10.Conclusions: The most reliable MCID is around 5 points for RS-SC-25 and 2 points for RS-SC-10. RS-SCs are more responsive to the worsening status of resilience in patients with cancer and these estimates could be useful in future resilience-based intervention trials.