Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Examining the minimum important difference.

R Brant1, L Sutherland, R Hilsden

  • 1Department of Community Health Sciences, Health Sciences Centre, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Dr., N. W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 4N1. rollin@health.ucalgary.ca

Statistics in Medicine
|September 25, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Canadian Surgery Forum: Abstracts of presentations to the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons, Canadian Association of General Surgeons, Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons, Canadian Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology, Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Vancouver, BC, Sept. 17-21, 2013.

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie·2025
Same author

Canadian Surgery Forum 2018: St. John's, NL Sept. 13-15, 2018.

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie·2022
Same author

Canadian Surgery Forum.

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie·2022
Same author

2021 Canadian Surgery Forum: Virtual, online Sept. 21-24, 2021.

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie·2022
Same author

Augmented-reality telementoring for leg fasciotomy: a proof-of-concept study.

BMJ military health·2022
Same author

Correlates of physical activity in children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review.

Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR·2021
Same journal

Interpretable Bayesian Modeling for Multireader Multicase Studies: Addressing Overdispersion and Limited Sample Size in Diagnostic Enhancement Evaluation.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Adaptive Sequential Multiple Hypotheses Testing for Concomitant Vaccine Safety Surveillance.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Novel Distance Regression for Repeated Outcomes With Missing Data: Applications to Longitudinal and Crossover Studies of Microbiome Beta-Diversity.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Optimal Weighted Tests for Replication Studies and the 'Two-Trials Rule' With Multiple Hypotheses.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Identifiable Copula-Double-Cox Models: A Fully Parametric Framework for Dependent Right-Censored Survival Data.

Statistics in medicine·2026
Same journal

Moving From Individualized Risk-Based Prevention to Benefit-Based Prevention: Estimating Individualized Life-Years Gained From Prevention Services as a Basis for Eligibility.

Statistics in medicine·2026
See all related articles

This study introduces a formal statistical framework to evaluate the clinical significance of changes measured by scales in clinical trials. It provides a method to determine the minimum important difference for outcome measures, aiding sample size calculations.

Area of Science:

  • Clinical Science
  • Biostatistics
  • Psychometrics

Background:

  • Constructed scales and indices are increasingly used in clinical science.
  • Appraising the importance of observed differences or changes on these scales remains challenging.
  • Determining clinically significant shifts is crucial for clinical trial design and sample size calculations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose a formal statistical framework for appraising the importance of differences or changes observed in clinical science.
  • To provide a method for determining the minimum important difference for specific outcome measures.
  • To establish a benchmark for judging observable changes on outcome scales.

Main Methods:

  • Adoption of a mixed-effect model to represent comparative self-reported assessments.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Modeling comparative assessments as composites of individual self-ratings on an underlying continuous scale.
  • Development of two approaches to assess the relationship between a hypothesized latent scale and outcome scales.

    • Main Results:

    • A formal statistical framework for assessing the minimum important difference is proposed.
    • The framework utilizes patient perceptions from comparative self-reported assessments.
    • Two methods are presented to relate latent scales to observable outcome scales for benchmarking.

    Conclusions:

    • The proposed framework offers a statistically rigorous approach to evaluating clinical significance.
    • This method can improve the precision of sample size calculations in clinical trials.
    • It provides a benchmark for interpreting the meaningfulness of changes in patient-reported outcomes.