This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (21) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Barrett, B. Articles by Brown, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barrett, B. Articles by Brown, R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Sufficiently Important Difference: Expanding the Framework of Clinical Significance

Department of Family Medicine at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, bbarrett{at}fammed.wisc.edu

David Brown, PhD

Department of Family Medicine at the University of Wisconsin—Madison

Marlon Mundt, MS

Department of Family Medicine at the University of Wisconsin—Madison

Roger Brown, PhD

School of Nursing at the University of Wisconsin—Madison

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.

Key Words: clinical significance • clinical trials • evidence-based medicine • health status • important difference • outcome measures • patient-oriented medicine • quality of life • treatment outcome

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 25, No. 3, 250-261 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276863


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Glinsky, L. Harvey, P. van Es, S. Chee, and S. C Gandevia The addition of electrical stimulation to progressive resistance training does not enhance the wrist strength of people with tetraplegia: a randomized controlled trial Clinical Rehabilitation, August 1, 2009; 23(8): 696 - 704. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. A. Nout, H. Putter, I. M. Jurgenliemk-Schulz, J. J. Jobsen, L. C.H.W. Lutgens, E. M. van der Steen-Banasik, J. W. M. Mens, A. Slot, M. C. Stenfert Kroese, B. N.F.M. van Bunningen, et al. Quality of Life After Pelvic Radiotherapy or Vaginal Brachytherapy for Endometrial Cancer: First Results of the Randomized PORTEC-2 Trial J. Clin. Oncol., July 20, 2009; 27(21): 3547 - 3556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. M. Clement, S. Klarenbach, M. Tonelli, J. A. Johnson, and B. J. Manns The Impact of Selecting a High Hemoglobin Target Level on Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Arch Intern Med, June 22, 2009; 169(12): 1104 - 1112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Follwell, D. Burman, L. W. Le, K. Wakimoto, D. Seccareccia, J. Bryson, G. Rodin, and C. Zimmermann Phase II Study of an Outpatient Palliative Care Intervention in Patients With Metastatic Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2009; 27(2): 206 - 213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Korstjens, A. M. May, E. van Weert, I. Mesters, F. Tan, W. J. G. Ros, J. E. H. M. Hoekstra-Weebers, C. P. van der Schans, and B. van den Borne Quality of Life After Self-Management Cancer Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Physical and Cognitive-Behavioral Training Versus Physical Training Psychosom Med, May 1, 2008; 70(4): 422 - 429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Saver Novel End Point Analytic Techniques and Interpreting Shifts Across the Entire Range of Outcome Scales in Acute Stroke Trials Stroke, November 1, 2007; 38(11): 3055 - 3062. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. W. Glickman, F.-S. Ou, E. R. DeLong, M. T. Roe, B. L. Lytle, J. Mulgund, J. S. Rumsfeld, W. B. Gibler, E. M. Ohman, K. A. Schulman, et al. Pay for Performance, Quality of Care, and Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction JAMA, June 6, 2007; 297(21): 2373 - 2380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Barrett, B. Harahan, D. Brown, Z. Zhang, and R. Brown Sufficiently Important Difference for Common Cold: Severity Reduction Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2007; 5(3): 216 - 223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Saver Clinical Impact of NXY-059 Demonstrated in the SAINT I Trial: Derivation of Number Needed to Treat for Benefit Over Entire Range of Functional Disability Stroke, May 1, 2007; 38(5): 1515 - 1518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Brand Benefits, Harms, and the Design of Clinical Trials Med Decis Making, May 1, 2005; 25(3): 246 - 247. [PDF]

				H. P. Lehmann Are We Ready for Patient-Based Effect Sizes in Clinical-Trials Research? Med Decis Making, May 1, 2005; 25(3): 248 - 249. [PDF]