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 Concept Videos

Bioequivalence Data: Statistical Interpretation01:16

Bioequivalence Data: Statistical Interpretation

The statistical interpretation of bioequivalence data is a significant aspect of pharmaceutical research. Bioequivalence refers to the absence of any significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient in pharmaceutical products becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar dose under similar conditions. This helps determine if different drug products have similar absorption rates, ensuring their interchangeability.Statistical...
Significance Testing: Overview01:04

Significance Testing: Overview

Significance testing is a set of statistical methods used to test whether a claim about a parameter is valid. In analytical chemistry, significance testing is used primarily to determine whether the difference between two values comes from determinate or random errors. The effect of a particular change in the measurement protocol, analyst, or sample itself can cause a deviation from the expected result. In the case of a suspected deviation/outlier, we need to be able to confirm mathematically...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation01:19

Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation

A complete procedure to test a claim about population standard deviation or population variance is explained here.
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
Clinically Relevant Drug Product Specifications: Methods of Establishment01:29

Clinically Relevant Drug Product Specifications: Methods of Establishment

Product specifications define the acceptable quality of a pharmaceutical product by ensuring identity, purity, potency, and strength. These specifications serve as benchmarks during development, manufacturing, and post-approval quality control. Clinically relevant specifications are particularly important because they directly relate to a drug's safety and efficacy in clinical use.Dissolution studies are critical biopharmaceutic tools that link in vitro behavior to in vivo performance. They...
Behrens–Fisher Test00:57

Behrens–Fisher Test

The Behrens-Fisher test is a statistical method designed to address the Behrens-Fisher problem, which arises when comparing the means of two normally distributed populations with unequal variances. Unlike the Student's t-test, which assumes equal variances, the Behrens-Fisher test allows for mean comparison without this restrictive assumption. This flexibility makes it particularly valuable in scenarios where two independent samples exhibit normality but lack variance homogeneity.
This test is...

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Developing a fit-for-purpose composite symptom score as a symptom burden endpoint for clinical trials in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Scientific reports·2024
Same author

Correction to: Establishing a common metric for patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: linking patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS), numerical rating scale, and patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE).

Journal of patient-reported outcomes·2023
Same author

Baseline Quality of Life is a Strong and Independent Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center·2023
Same author

Identifying meaningful change on PROMIS short forms in cancer patients: a comparison of item response theory and classic test theory frameworks.

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation·2022
Same author

Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order.

Clinical trials (London, England)·2022
Same author

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD).

Cancer·2021

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 18, 2026

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

Assessing the minimally clinically significant difference: scientific considerations, challenges and solutions.

Jeff A Sloan1

  • 1Mayo Clinic Rochester, Cancer Center Statistics, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. jsloan@mayo.edu

COPD
|December 2, 2006
PubMed
Summary

Estimating the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) is challenging but solvable. Combining multiple methods, clinical opinion, and patient feedback offers the most reliable approach to determine MCID.

More Related Videos

The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test (MSPT): An iPad-Based Disability Assessment Tool
11:35

The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test (MSPT): An iPad-Based Disability Assessment Tool

Published on: June 30, 2014

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 18, 2026

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test (MSPT): An iPad-Based Disability Assessment Tool
11:35

The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test (MSPT): An iPad-Based Disability Assessment Tool

Published on: June 30, 2014

Area of Science:

  • Clinical Research Methodology
  • Health Outcomes Research

Background:

  • Estimating the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) presents numerous scientific challenges.
  • Existing literature and current scientific understanding of MCID estimation are synthesized.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To outline the issues and challenges in MCID estimation.
  • To propose solutions and guidelines for advancing the science of MCID determination.
  • To provide a starting point for establishing MCID estimation processes.

Main Methods:

  • Literature synthesis on MCID estimation.
  • Comparison of MCID determination for different endpoints (e.g., tumor response, CBC variables, toxicity, Quality of Life).
  • Discussion of various available methods for ascertaining MCID.

Main Results:

  • Multiple methods exist for MCID estimation, each with strengths and limitations.
  • Convergent findings are observed across different MCID estimation methods.
  • Clinical judgment and patient-reported outcomes are crucial in MCID determination.

Conclusions:

  • A comprehensive approach integrating various methods, sensitivity analyses, clinical opinion, and patient subjective responses is optimal for robust MCID estimation.
  • While no single method is perfect, combining approaches enhances the reliability of MCID values.