Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques

J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Nov;49(11):1215-9. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00206-5.


We have developed a method for estimating the minimally important difference (MID) for health status measures. Whereas the conventional approach requires patients to judge themselves relative to their memories, our method requires patients to judge themselves relative to others with the same condition. In this study we examined whether our method (based on between-patient differences) and the conventional method (based on within-patient changes) provides comparable estimates of the MID for one health status measure: the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were participating in a supervised respiratory rehabilitation program were included if they were in stable health (n = 112). Their mean score per question in the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire was 4.5 (range, 1 to 7; where bigger values indicate better health). Our method estimated that the MID was 0.5 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 0.7). This estimate was similar to the MID previously found using the conventional method. These observations support the role of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire for measuring patient's symptoms, the validity of our approach for assessing the MID, and an estimate on the order of 0.5 as the threshold for this particular health status measure.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adaptation, Psychological
  • Aged
  • Dyspnea / psychology
  • Fatigue / psychology
  • Female
  • Forced Expiratory Volume
  • Health Status Indicators*
  • Health Status*
  • Humans
  • Lung Diseases, Obstructive / classification*
  • Lung Diseases, Obstructive / psychology
  • Lung Diseases, Obstructive / rehabilitation
  • Male
  • Quality of Life
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Surveys and Questionnaires