Sufficiently Important Difference: Expanding the Framework of Clinical Significance
- 1 May 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Medical Decision Making
- Vol. 25 (3) , 250-261
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x05276863
Abstract
Background . It is generally agreed that randomized controlled trials should be powered to detect small but clinically significant treatment effects. Toward these ends, minimal important difference (MID) was proposed as a benchmark for designing trials and for interpreting health-related quality-of-life instrument scores. MID was defined in 1989 as “the smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate, in the absence of troubling side effects and excessive cost, a change in the patient’s management.” Objective. 1) To expand the idea of minimal clinically important difference so as to take into account harms as well as benefits. 2) To propose concepts and methods with which to do so. Summary . The authors define sufficiently important difference (SID) as the smallest amount of patient-valued benefit that an intervention would require to justify associated costs, risks, and other harms. As a means toward estimation of SID, the authors propose benefit-harm tradeoff methods, in which domains of benefit and harm are systematically traded off against each other and assessed in relation to the global decision of whether a treatment choice is worthwhile. Specific SID estimates can be used to power and interpret clinical trials or to inform health services research and/or public health policy. This article briefly describes the evolution of the important difference concept and outlines similarities and differences between MID and SID.Keywords
This publication has 63 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease: an expert consensus panel reportAmerican Heart Journal, 2004
- Clinically important differences in health-related quality of life for patients with asthma: an expert consensus panel reportAnnals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 2003
- Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status MeasuresMayo Clinic Proceedings, 2002
- When should an effective treatment be used?: Derivation of the threshold number needed to treat and the minimum event rate for treatmentJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2001
- Key Methodological Features of Randomized Controlled Trials of Alzheimer’s Disease TherapyDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 1999
- The Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Physician–assigned Visual Analog Pain ScoresAcademic Emergency Medicine, 1996
- Patient-centredness: Is It Applicable Outside the West? Its Measurement and Effect on OutcomesFamily Practice, 1992
- Measurement of health statusControlled Clinical Trials, 1989
- Patients’ Preferences in Randomized Clinical TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1984
- The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for BiomedicineScience, 1977