统计意义与临床意义之间的差距:是时候关注失眠症患者报告结果测量的临床相关性了。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Zongshi Qin, Yidan Zhu, Dong-Dong Shi, Rumeng Chen, Sen Li, Jiani Wu
{"title":"统计意义与临床意义之间的差距:是时候关注失眠症患者报告结果测量的临床相关性了。","authors":"Zongshi Qin, Yidan Zhu, Dong-Dong Shi, Rumeng Chen, Sen Li, Jiani Wu","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02297-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Appropriately defining and using the minimal important change (MIC) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) are crucial for determining whether the results are clinically significant. The aim of this study is to survey the status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and interpretation of MIC/MCID values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study to survey the status of RCTs for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and appropriate interpretation of MIC/MCID values. A literature search was conducted by searching the main sleep medicine journals indexed in PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify a broad range of search terms. We included RCTs with no restriction on the intervention. The included studies used the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) or the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire as the outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>81 eligible studies were identified, and more than one-third of the included studies used MIC/MCID (n = 31, 38.3%). Among them, 21 studies with ISI as the outcome used MIC defined as a relative decrease ranging from 3 to 8 points. The most frequently used MIC value was a 6-point decrease (n = 7), followed by 8-point (n = 6) and 7-point decrease (n = 4), a 4 to 5-points decrease (n = 3), and a 30% reduction from baseline; 6 studies used MCID values, ranging from 2.8 to 4 points. The most frequently used MCID value was a 4-point decrease in the ISI (n = 4). 4 studies with PSQI as the outcome used a 3-point change as the MIC (n = 2) and a 2.5 to 2.7-point difference as MCID (n = 2). 4 non-inferiority design studies considered interval estimation when drawing clinically significant conclusions in their MCID usage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The lack of consistent MIC/MCID interpretation and usage in outcome measures for insomnia highlights the urgent need for further efforts to address this issue and improve reporting practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11308508/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The gap between statistical and clinical significance: time to pay attention to clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome measures of insomnia.\",\"authors\":\"Zongshi Qin, Yidan Zhu, Dong-Dong Shi, Rumeng Chen, Sen Li, Jiani Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-024-02297-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Appropriately defining and using the minimal important change (MIC) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) are crucial for determining whether the results are clinically significant. The aim of this study is to survey the status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and interpretation of MIC/MCID values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study to survey the status of RCTs for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and appropriate interpretation of MIC/MCID values. A literature search was conducted by searching the main sleep medicine journals indexed in PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify a broad range of search terms. We included RCTs with no restriction on the intervention. The included studies used the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) or the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire as the outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>81 eligible studies were identified, and more than one-third of the included studies used MIC/MCID (n = 31, 38.3%). Among them, 21 studies with ISI as the outcome used MIC defined as a relative decrease ranging from 3 to 8 points. The most frequently used MIC value was a 6-point decrease (n = 7), followed by 8-point (n = 6) and 7-point decrease (n = 4), a 4 to 5-points decrease (n = 3), and a 30% reduction from baseline; 6 studies used MCID values, ranging from 2.8 to 4 points. The most frequently used MCID value was a 4-point decrease in the ISI (n = 4). 4 studies with PSQI as the outcome used a 3-point change as the MIC (n = 2) and a 2.5 to 2.7-point difference as MCID (n = 2). 4 non-inferiority design studies considered interval estimation when drawing clinically significant conclusions in their MCID usage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The lack of consistent MIC/MCID interpretation and usage in outcome measures for insomnia highlights the urgent need for further efforts to address this issue and improve reporting practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11308508/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02297-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02297-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:正确定义和使用最小重要改变(MIC)和最小临床重要差异(MCID)对于确定结果是否具有临床意义至关重要。本研究的目的是调查失眠干预随机对照试验(RCT)的现状,以评估MIC/MCID值的纳入和解释:我们开展了一项横断面研究,调查失眠症干预措施的 RCT 现状,以评估 MIC/MCID 值的纳入和适当解释。我们通过检索 PubMed、Excerpta Medica 数据库 (EMBASE) 和 Cochrane 对照试验中央登记册 (CENTRAL) 中收录的主要睡眠医学期刊进行文献检索,以确定广泛的检索词。我们纳入的是对干预措施没有限制的 RCT。纳入的研究使用失眠严重程度指数(ISI)或匹兹堡睡眠质量指数(PSQI)问卷作为结果测量指标:确定了 81 项符合条件的研究,超过三分之一的纳入研究使用了 MIC/MCID(n = 31,38.3%)。其中,21 项以 ISI 为结果的研究将 MIC 定义为相对下降 3 到 8 个点。最常用的 MIC 值为下降 6 个点(7 项),其次是下降 8 个点(6 项)和 7 个点(4 项),下降 4 至 5 个点(3 项),以及从基线下降 30%;6 项研究使用了 MCID 值,从 2.8 个点到 4 个点不等。最常用的 MCID 值是 ISI 下降 4 分(4 项)。4 项以 PSQI 为结果的研究将 3 点变化作为 MIC 值(n = 2),将 2.5 至 2.7 点差异作为 MCID 值(n = 2)。4项非劣效设计研究在使用MCID得出具有临床意义的结论时考虑了区间估计:失眠症结果测量中缺乏一致的MIC/MCID解释和用法,这突出表明迫切需要进一步努力解决这一问题并改进报告实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The gap between statistical and clinical significance: time to pay attention to clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome measures of insomnia.

Background: Appropriately defining and using the minimal important change (MIC) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) are crucial for determining whether the results are clinically significant. The aim of this study is to survey the status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and interpretation of MIC/MCID values.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to survey the status of RCTs for insomnia interventions to assess the inclusion and appropriate interpretation of MIC/MCID values. A literature search was conducted by searching the main sleep medicine journals indexed in PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify a broad range of search terms. We included RCTs with no restriction on the intervention. The included studies used the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) or the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire as the outcome measures.

Results: 81 eligible studies were identified, and more than one-third of the included studies used MIC/MCID (n = 31, 38.3%). Among them, 21 studies with ISI as the outcome used MIC defined as a relative decrease ranging from 3 to 8 points. The most frequently used MIC value was a 6-point decrease (n = 7), followed by 8-point (n = 6) and 7-point decrease (n = 4), a 4 to 5-points decrease (n = 3), and a 30% reduction from baseline; 6 studies used MCID values, ranging from 2.8 to 4 points. The most frequently used MCID value was a 4-point decrease in the ISI (n = 4). 4 studies with PSQI as the outcome used a 3-point change as the MIC (n = 2) and a 2.5 to 2.7-point difference as MCID (n = 2). 4 non-inferiority design studies considered interval estimation when drawing clinically significant conclusions in their MCID usage.

Conclusions: The lack of consistent MIC/MCID interpretation and usage in outcome measures for insomnia highlights the urgent need for further efforts to address this issue and improve reporting practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信