Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

By Dennis A. Revicki, R. Hays, D. Cella, J. Sloan. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008

2,122 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods (2020, methodology): “[21] recommended the usage of the anchor-based method to produce primary evidence for the MCID of any instrument and the distribution-based method to provide secondary or supportive evidence for that MCID.”
The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content (2010, methodology): “In the literature there is an ongoing discussion about which methods should be used to determine the MIC or MID of a HR-PRO instrument [31].”
ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research (2013, methodology): “scores or minimally important difference (MID) estimates were not considered required, but were considered highly desirable [34, 44, 45].”