Search results

True. But if you take for example half a standard deviation of a sample of patients who filled in the questionnaire, it's clear that the patients didn't determine the MID. The estimate is not their judgment even though their data was used. The anchoring method uses a bit more of the patient's...

So I'm going to change the original summary I've posted on Minimal Important Differences (MID). The studies of Ward et al. 2014 and Swigris et al. 2010 gave values of 7.1 and 3 as MID but these were norm-based. Recalculated these would be somewhere around 16.5 and 7.1. Thanks to Dolphin for...

I don't know. We're mostly doing the calculation to get the original value. The study the Cochrane review cites for the minimal important difference (MID) for physical function uses a norm-based value of 7.1 Norm-based values are not very relevant to the MID estimate needed and they tend to be...

Thanks. I've added you to the list.

Some more info from here: https://c-path.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017_session5_scoringfinal.pdf EDIT: if we use the formula here, the 7.1 norm-based score would correspond to an original score of 16.54.

You could be right. Swigris et al. 2010 said they recalculated the MID raw value for Kosinski et al. 2000 (reported as 7.7) to a norm-based value of 3. Your formula is not far off 3 x 24/10 =7.2 So for the Ward et al. study the raw value would be 7.1 x 24/10 = 17 points. If we would use a...

I've been searching but can't really find the full explanation. I suspect it's explained in this reference: Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B, Maruish ME. User's manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey. 2nd ed. QualityMetric Incorporated; Lincoln, RI: 2007. I found some...

Yes, That's probably my mistake. The value of 3 for the SF-36, for example, was a normalised value. I'm trying to figure out how to recalculate them to the raw score because the study that Larun et al. cited (Ward et al. 2014) also used a normalised. It gave a MID of 7.1. I suspect the raw...

Wouldn't that be visible as a smaller standard deviation (SD)? In the three anchoring studies the SD was 6.6, 5.2 and 5.8 so not particularly lower than in CFS samples, I guess. To be honest, I also had problems interpreting the data in these three studies that used the anchoring method for...

Thanks for pointing this out! Yes, it was a normalized score. I didn't realize this could make a big difference to points on the scale. The Ward et al. (2014) study that Larun et al. cite was also a normalized score. It would be interesting to recalculate it to the original scores. I haven't...

9) Minimally important differences I’ve been reading up on the issue of minimally important differences (MID), the smallest difference that patients are likely to consider important. The authors of the Cochrane review have used MID to suggest that the treatments effects they found are clinically...

Don't think so. Mean baseline score and standard deviation for the exercise group: 1335.27 (280.99) Mean baseline score and standard deviation for the control group: 1317.78 (296.55) They have excluded the results of Jason 2007 for physical function because of baseline difference (a correct...

Didn't know that. Higgins is a big name. He's the main author of the Cochrane handbook, both the old and new version. He's also from Bristol.

So Wise & Brown (2005) say that "The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the 6MWT is conservatively estimated to be 54-80 meters." The difference between the improvements in meters walked in the GET group (67 meters) and SMC (22 meters) was 45 meters, so less than 54-80 meters...

This is from the GRADE handbook: Link: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html#h.3183vuv3ey12

Interesting ME Action interview with Wilhelmina Jenkins about ethnicity and the undiagnosed: https://www.meaction.net/2019/10/14/race-ethnicity-and-m-e-why-we-need-to-build-a-more-inclusive-movement-and-why-it-matters/ Powerful quote:

Thanks for your support, you're on the list now. Welcome to the forum. Hope you'll stick around.

8) Lack of blinding Larun et al. have downgraded the quality of evidence of pretty much all outcomes in their review due to a lack of blinding with one level. I don’t think this adequately addresses the risk of bias. A 2014 review by Hrobjartsson et al. on trials that compared blinded and...

Thanks for giving your perspective @Lucibee As someone with no statistical background, I was surprised that baseline differences are ignored in these meta-analyses. I was messing around with the data on oxygen consumption during an exercise test, to see what the result would be if someone were...

Thanks :), You're brilliant @Andy It was really puzzling for me.