Suppr超能文献

统计学意义与临床意义之间的差距:是时候关注失眠患者报告结局指标中的临床相关性了。

The gap between statistical and clinical significance: time to pay attention to clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome measures of insomnia.

作者信息

Qin Zongshi, Zhu Yidan, Shi Dong-Dong, Chen Rumeng, Li Sen, Wu Jiani

机构信息

Clinical Research Institute, Institute of Advanced Clinical Medicine, Peking University, Beijing, China.

Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Aug 8;24(1):177. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02297-0.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

恰当定义和使用最小重要变化(MIC)及最小临床重要差异(MCID)对于确定结果是否具有临床意义至关重要。本研究旨在调查失眠干预随机对照试验(RCT)的现状,以评估MIC/MCID值的纳入情况及解读。

方法

我们开展了一项横断面研究,以调查失眠干预RCT的现状,评估MIC/MCID值的纳入及恰当解读。通过检索PubMed索引的主要睡眠医学期刊、医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)和Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)进行文献检索,以确定广泛的检索词。我们纳入了对干预无限制的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)问卷作为结局指标。

结果

共识别出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为结局的研究使用的MIC定义为相对降低3至8分。最常用的MIC值是降低6分(n = 7),其次是降低8分(n = 6)和降低7分(n = 4)、降低4至5分(n = 3)以及较基线降低30%;6项研究使用了MCID值,范围为2.8至4分。最常用的MCID值是ISI降低4分(n = 4)。4项以PSQI为结局的研究将3分变化用作MIC(n = 2),将2.5至2.7分的差异用作MCID(n = 2)。4项非劣效性设计研究在其MCID使用中得出具有临床意义的结论时考虑了区间估计。

结论

失眠结局指标中MIC/MCID的解读和使用缺乏一致性,凸显了进一步努力解决这一问题并改进报告规范的迫切需求。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/942c/11308508/e4b5c8c3fd8c/12874_2024_2297_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验