IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i3p250-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sufficiently Important Difference: Expanding the Framework of Clinical Significance

Author

Listed:
  • Bruce Barrett

    (Department of Family Medicine at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, bbarrett@fammed.wisc.edu)

  • David Brown

    (Department of Family Medicine at the University of Wisconsin—Madison)

  • Marlon Mundt

    (Department of Family Medicine at the University of Wisconsin—Madison)

  • Roger Brown

    (School of Nursing at the University of Wisconsin—Madison)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce Barrett & David Brown & Marlon Mundt & Roger Brown, 2005. "Sufficiently Important Difference: Expanding the Framework of Clinical Significance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(3), pages 250-261, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:250-261
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05276863
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05276863?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael P Hengartner & Janus C Jakobsen & Anders Sørensen & Martin Plöderl, 2020. "Efficacy of new-generation antidepressants assessed with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the gold standard clinician rating scale: A meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:250-261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.