Skip to main content
Home
  • Clinical Outcome Assessments
    Clinical Outcome Assessments

    What are Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs)? What do they measure?

    Learn more about COAs
    hero_1.jpeg
    The most trusted distributor of COAs

    700+ exclusive COA distributions on behalf of their copyright owners

    hero_2.jpeg
    PROQOLID™: the largest COA database

    7,000+ COAs described in details and accessible in this unique database

  • Services
    Services

    Mapi Research Trust provides turnkey solutions for your Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) strategies - including COA databases, targeted literature reviews, licensing.

    Read More
    COA Databases Patient-Centered Endpoint Intelligence COA Licensing Translation and Linguistic Validation eCOA Licensing COA Repository
    hero_3.jpeg
    About ePROVIDE™

    Online access to all our services and COA databases

    hero_2_2.jpeg
    What are eBooklets?

    Find out more about this step-by-step guidance for valid digitization of COAs

  • Author Collaboration
    Author Collaboration

    Our team is dedicated to assisting authors in the daily management of their questionnaires and all derivatives, including translations and electronic versions

    Read More
    COA distribution COA copyright and protection Promotion of COAs and developers Testimonials
    hero_3_1.jpeg
    Catalog of COAs distributed by Mapi Research Trust

    800+ exclusive distributions of COAs, accessible in ePROVIDE

  • Resources
    Resources

    ACCESS all our resources on COAs and eCOA: webinars, publications, blogs. SUBSCRIBE to receive email updates.

    Read More
    Blog Publications Useful links Webinar recordings Whitepapers
    Whitepaper-Digitizing-COAs.jpg
    New whitepaper

    Digitizing COAs: A streamlined approach to approval

    hero_4_2.jpeg
    New whitepaper

    COAs and copyright: How to mitigate risks of infringement and misuse in clinical research and practice

  • News & Events
    News & Events

    Stay informed with our latest news and check all our upcoming events. SUBSCRIBE to get email updates.

    Read More
    hero_5_1.jpeg
    News
    Hero_5_2.jpeg
    Conferences
    Hero_5_3.jpeg
    Webinars
  • About us
    About us

    Mapi Research Trust is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving patients’ quality of life by facilitating access to Clinical Outcome Assessments(COAs).

    Read More
    hero_6_1.jpeg
    Team

    A global team of multi-disciplinary experts

    hero_6_2.jpeg
    Experience

    Collecting & Processing Patient Centered Outcomes information for more than two decades

  • Contact
  1. Home
  2. News & Events
  3. News
  4. Making sense of patient-reported outcomes when making recommendations

Making sense of patient-reported outcomes when making recommendations

Tahira Devji, PhD Candidate; Gordon Guyatt, Distinguished Professor – McMaster University

Applying results of clinical trials in the context of making treatment recommendations presents many challenges.  In this article, we describe how we addressed the challenge of interpreting results in a guideline addressing arthroscopy in patients with degenerative knee disease.
Investigators increasingly rely on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as key endpoints in clinical trials. Although PROs provide patients’ experience of the impact of disease and treatment on their health status, challenges in interpreting changes in PRO scores can limit their usefulness in informing patient-centered care.
A key issue for those making recommendations on the basis of clinical trials using PROs is how patients value the outcomes: where in the continuum between trivial and very important will patients place observed improvements in PROs such as pain or physical function? Knowledge of the minimal important difference (MID), the smallest change that patients perceive as important, either beneficial or harmful, facilitates an understanding of the magnitude of intervention effects in randomized trials.
The MAGIC, non-profit research and innovation programme – representing patients, front-line clinicians, researchers, and guideline experts (www.magicproject.org) has recently partnered with the BMJ to publish trustworthy recommendations in response to potentially practice changing evidence: BMJ Rapid Recommendations1. BMJ Rapid Recommendations panels, as in any guideline, require appropriate interpretation of the importance of effects when moving from evidence to recommendations – judgments that should reflect patients’ values and preferences. The panel responsible for creating the second BMJ Rapid Recommendation, addressing the impact of arthroscopic surgery versus non-operative management in patients with degenerative knee disease, faced challenges in interpreting the significance of apparent treatment effects on critical outcomes of interest: pain, function, and quality of life (QoL).

To address this challenge, we conducted a systematic review to identify the most trustworthy MID estimates for the PROs used in trials comparing arthroscopic surgery to conservative management.
We identified 13 studies, many of which suffered from serious methodologic limitations, that reported on 95 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 8 PRO instruments and/or their sub-domains that measure knee pain, function or QoL. We identified credible MIDs for the Western Ontario McMaster Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D).
Our systematic review showed that MIDs may vary substantially by estimation method, population and context. We were able to distinguish between more and less trustworthy MIDs and provide best estimates for key instruments that informed evidence presentation in the associated systematic review of treatment effects, and judgments in the Rapid Recommendation. The panel, aware through use of the MID that benefits associated with arthroscopy were very small, made a strong recommendation against knee arthroscopy.
Though we were able to distinguish the more or less trustworthy MIDs, the range of estimates among those deemed credible was still very wide.  At the time of writing, we are in negotiation with the BMJ regarding the fate of our review of MIDs, the associated systematic review, and the recommendation itself.
Our study provides a model for applying the MID concept to aid in the interpretation of evidence, and the formulation of recommendations for clinical practice guidelines, and highlights the challenges when trustworthy MIDs are not available.
Our group is currently conducting several projects to advance MID methods including the development of a definitive credibility instrument and testing its reliability, a comprehensive systematic survey of the MID methods literature, a systematic review to identify anchor-based MIDs for all known PRO instruments and, in collaboration with the Cochrane PRO methods group, a systematic survey of PRO aggregation methods employed in Cochrane reviews.  We welcome collaboration by anyone interested in this work.
References

Siemieniuk RA, Agoritsas T, Macdonald H, et al. Introduction to BMJ Rapid Recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2016;354:i5191. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5191 [published Online First: 2016/09/30]

In this section
In this section
  • News
  • Events
    • Conferences
    • Webinars
Site Branding
    ICON plc
  • Contact
  • About Us
For Clients
  • Services
  • Resources
  • ePROVIDE™
News & Events
  • News
  • Conferences
  • Webinars
Socials
  • Linkedin

Legal Footer

  • © 2025 Mapi Research Trust
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy
  • Site Cookies
How can we help?
  • All
Popular search terms:
  • COVID-19
  • Site & Patient Recruitment
  • Oncology
  • Medical Device
  • Real World Evidence
  • Decentralised & hybrid clinical trials
  • Digital Disruption