Trigg Andrew, Ayasse Nicolai D, Coon Cheryl D
Medical Affairs Statistics, Bayer plc, Reading, UK.
Clinical Outcome Assessment Program, Critical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Qual Life Res. 2025 Jan;34(1):151-160. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03798-7. Epub 2024 Oct 9.
Determining if group-level differences in health outcomes are meaningful has recently been neglected in favour of determining if individuals have experienced a meaningful change. We explore interpretation of a meaningful between-group difference (MBGD) in clinical outcome assessment scores, primarily in the context of randomized clinical trials.
We constructed a series of possible 'viewpoints' on how to conceptualize MBGD thresholds. Each viewpoint is discussed critically in terms of potential advantages and disadvantages, with simulated data to facilitate their consideration.
Five viewpoints are presented and discussed. The first considers whether thresholds for meaningful within-individual change over time can be equally applied at the group-level, which is shown to be untenable. Viewpoints 2-4 consider what would have to be observed in treatment groups to conclude a meaningful between-group difference has occurred, framed in terms of the proportion of patients perceiving that they had meaningfully improved. The final viewpoint considers an alternative framework where stakeholders are directly questioned on the meaningfulness of varying magnitudes of between-group differences. The choice of a single threshold versus general interpretative guidelines is discussed.
There does not appear to be a single method with clear face validity for determining MBGD thresholds. Additionally, the notion that such thresholds can be purely data-driven is challenged, where a degree of subjective stakeholder judgement is likely required. Areas for future research are proposed, to move towards robust method development.
近期人们更倾向于确定个体是否经历了有意义的变化,而忽视了确定健康结果在组间层面的差异是否有意义。我们主要在随机临床试验的背景下,探讨对临床结局评估分数中有意义的组间差异(MBGD)的解读。
我们构建了一系列关于如何概念化MBGD阈值的可能“观点”。每个观点都从潜在的优点和缺点方面进行了批判性讨论,并使用模拟数据以方便对其进行考量。
提出并讨论了五个观点。第一个观点考虑个体随时间有意义变化的阈值是否可以同样应用于组间层面,结果表明这是站不住脚的。观点2至4考虑在治疗组中必须观察到什么才能得出有意义的组间差异已经出现的结论,这是以认为自己有意义地改善的患者比例来表述的。最后一个观点考虑了一个替代框架,即直接询问利益相关者关于组间差异不同幅度的意义。讨论了选择单一阈值与一般解释指南的问题。
似乎不存在一种具有明显表面效度的单一方法来确定MBGD阈值。此外,这种阈值可以纯粹由数据驱动的观念受到了挑战,因为可能需要一定程度的利益相关者主观判断。提出了未来研究的方向,以推动稳健方法的发展。