ライフサイエンスコーパス: MCID

1 MCID estimates at 12 months were calculated in the poole

2 MCID was defined as the mean difference in scores betwee

3 MCID was estimated using mean change scores of patients

4 There was no direct association of DDS-17 MCID improvement (beta = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.10; P

5 % (170/486) had reductions of >= 1 point (2x MCID).

6 a +3.5 (39% MCID), and total LDQOL +2.2 (35% MCID) (all p < 0.05).

7 .0 (28% met MCID), Health Distress +8.1 (38% MCID), Stigma +3.5 (39% MCID), and total LDQOL +2.2 (35%

8 h Distress +8.1 (38% MCID), Stigma +3.5 (39% MCID), and total LDQOL +2.2 (35% MCID) (all p < 0.05).

9 istent > 2-fold higher chance of attaining a MCID for physical and functional well-being over time fo

10 ant difference (MCID) and probabilities of a MCID occurring in each QoL domain to provide QoL metrics

11 th hip and knee osteoarthritis, the absolute MCID is 7 U (95% CI, 4 to 10 U) and the percentage MCID

12 sing this RQLQ(S) threshold as an anchor, an MCID of CSMS(0-6) of -0.21 points (-16%) was derived usi

13 were significantly more likely to attain an MCID in pain severity compared with control (health coac

14 ported change scores that met or exceeded an MCID value while 59% reported change scores that met or

15 in allergic symptoms and translated into an MCID for the EAACI recommended CSMS(0-6).

16 This translated into an MCID range for CSMS(0-6) of -0.23 to -0.21 points or -17

17 ble linear regression was used to provide an MCID estimate after adjusting for patients' 3-month PAQ

18 Of those reporting an MCID, 14 (35.9%) used an anchor-based method, 12 (30.8%)

19 nt change in PAQ summary score represents an MCID.

20 of data from a randomized clinical trial, an MCID improvement or worsening of more than 0.25 on the D

21 median number of citations of PROMs with an MCID was higher than those without an MCID.

22 ith an MCID was higher than those without an MCID.

23 The MCID value for DDS-17 was 0.25 and MCID values for the 4 distress subscales were 0.38 for e

24 ge of participants presenting no change, and MCID (triangulation of distribution-based and anchor-bas

25 ned associations between treatment group and MCID change categories and whether improvement in HbA1c

26 study, we aimed to assess responsiveness and MCID of four outcome measures used in atopic eczema: the

27 greatest number of PROMs with an associated MCID (16 of 24, 66%), and pediatrics had the fewest (1 o

28 d PROMs in otolaryngology lack an associated MCID.

29 %) of the identified PROMs had an associated MCID.

30 and characteristics of the PROMs' associated MCID.

31 back and RESONATE results support an average MCID of -0.22 points on the CSMS(0-6) scale and -16% on

32 The main outcome was distribution-based MCID values for the total DDS-17 and 4 DDS-17 subscales,

33 l transition question, was used to determine MCID values of 12.2, 8.4, and - 1.8, and SCB values of 2

34 g a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and probabilities of a MCID occurring in each QoL

35 rts minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for

36 d a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) as 1 standard error of measurement from a well-cha

37 the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at 4 months of follow-up and FeNO non-responders a

38 the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) at both time points.

39 the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the DHI, whereas 4 (31%) exceeded the MCID for

40 the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for urinary and bowel QOL were also evaluated.

41 of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for WOMAC pain and function at both 6- and 12-mont

42 the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has not been established.

43 and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) have not been established.

44 the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in HRQOL measures was assessed.

45 e minimally clinically important difference (MCID) in HRQOL scores in HCV.

46 the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in pain severity score (>=30% decrease; score rang

47 The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in score is 0.5.

48 and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in this patient group is lacking.

49 Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is defined as the smallest change in a treatment o

50 ted minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is needed to optimize their utility.

51 The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is unknown for the primary outcome; for total WOMA

52 f a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is well established.

53 the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5 for both.

54 the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the POEM in young children with eczema.

55 and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) should be known.

56 -on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for the DDS-17.

57 Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was also measured.

58 PCS Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) was quantified.

59 the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) were assessed using anonymous surveys sent to UK-b

60 the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

61 ied minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

62 the minimal clinically important difference (MCID, -6) in AE-QoL total score.

63 ; minimally clinically important difference [MCID, 2]) and knee joint compressive force, defined as t

64 re (minimal clinically important difference [MCID] = 19 seconds) and proportion of patients improving

65 the minimum clinically important difference [MCID] has not been established).

66 ts (minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) and 35.0% (170/486) had reductions of >= 1 point

67 met minimal clinically important difference [MCID]), LDQOL domains: Role Emotional +3.0 (28% met MCID

68 e]; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 1.8 units) and physical function (Western Ontario

69 ts; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for sy

70 ty; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 2.8-3.2) and Modified Caregiver Strain Index for

71 hs (minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 25 m).

72 us; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 4 units).

73 t]; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 9 points); and symptom burden translated to the E

74 he minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for FVC% predicted in the Scleroderma Lung Study I

75 ng minimum clinically important differences (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes is essential in inter

76 [no difficulty] to 68 [extreme difficulty]; MCID, 6 units) at 12 weeks.

77 0.7 units), baseline 6-minute walk distance (MCID, 30 m), and exacerbation frequency (events per 100

78 C] scale 0 to 4; 4 represents worse dyspnea; MCID, 0.7 units), baseline 6-minute walk distance (MCID,

79 expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1; MCID, 10%).

80 The final MCID estimates were 10 (EQ-VAS) and 0.11 (utility score)

81 for each of these subscales met criteria for MCID.

82 ith lumbar decompression plus spinal fusion (MCID, 2-4.9 points).

83 FVC% improvement by >/=MCID was associated with either statistically significan

84 PROs, QILD, and QLF, while FVC% worsening >/=MCID was associated with statistically significant or nu

85 sent molecular computational identification (MCID), a demonstration that molecular logic and computat

86 ich we sought to prospectively establish its MCID from patients' perspectives.

87 t in patients with HCV, and generated a mean MCID of 4.2 points on this scale.

88 LDQOL domains: Role Emotional +3.0 (28% met MCID), Health Distress +8.1 (38% MCID), Stigma +3.5 (39%

89 d approaches were used to determine 12-month MCID values for the International Knee Documentation Com

90 No MCID from patients' perspectives has ever been published

91 erence [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL).

92 ysis reinforces the potential value of novel MCID metrics and their usefulness in raising the profile

93 We next assessed the association of MCID estimates for improvement and worsening of FVC% wit

94 In the databases of MCID (2683 filtered metabolites), HMDB (5506), KEGG (115

95 scale (0 [no pain] to 100 [unbearable pain]; MCID, 15) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universit

96 Index (0 [no pain] to 500 [unbearable pain]; MCID, 75) over 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and change in

97 ts with cervical myelopathy achieved the PCS MCID (59%).

98 ditions, 70-75% of patients achieved the PCS MCID.

99 s 7 U (95% CI, 4 to 10 U) and the percentage MCID is 14% (95% CI, 9% to 18%).

100 The proposed MCID for the cumulative probability of success of standa

101 g the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MCID, 4) and change in forced expiratory volume in the f

102 In reporting MCID and SCB values for PROMs following the treatment of

103 roke Impact Scale (SIS) hand function score (MCID = 17.8 points).

104 (range, 0-26; higher scores, greater strain; MCID, 1.5-2.3).

105 The suggested MCID for the cumulative probability of success for MIGS

106 The MCID estimates for the pooled cohort at 12 months for FV

107 The MCID of the AE-QoL total score was found to be six point

108 The MCID of the POEM change score, in relation to a slight i

109 The MCID value for DDS-17 was 0.25 and MCID values for the 4

110 The MCID was 1.0 and DSRS and FOIS scores may be estimated f

111 The MCID was 8.7 points for the SCORAD, 8.2 for the objectiv

112 and was 7.2 times more likely to achieve the MCID than the placebo group.

113 of the lanadelumab total group achieved the MCID (70% vs 37%; p = 0.001).

114 on of patients who received CYC achieved the MCID compared with placebo in the HAQ DI score (30.9% ve

115 In addition, the MCID was determined using anchor-based and distributiona

116 ng children is responsive to change, and the MCID is around 3.

117 ter" or "somewhat worse" were defined as the MCID estimates.

118 ic curves consistently identifying -2 as the MCID.

119 subsequently used as an anchor to derive the MCID for CSMS(0-6) using the data of a Phase III clinica

120 sus is an accepted approach to determine the MCID.

121 Five methods of determining the MCID of the POEM were employed; three anchor-based metho

122 (half SD, SE of measurement) to estimate the MCID for the CAT; we included only patients with paired

123 a modified Delphi technique to estimate the MCID in HCV.

124 D) for the DHI, whereas 4 (31%) exceeded the MCID for the ABC Scale, and 3 (23%) exceeded the MCID fo

125 for the ABC Scale, and 3 (23%) exceeded the MCID for the FES-I.

126 Distribution-based estimates for the MCID ranged from -3.3 to -3.8.

127 We aimed to identify the MCID for the CAT using anchor-based and distribution-bas

128 ith EUC, more EPICC participants were in the MCID improvement category on DDS-17 (63 participants [51

129 n the point effect estimate is only just the MCID, and the true effect could be smaller.

130 marrow lesion size over 6 and 24 months (the MCID has not been established).

131 lity scale can be used as an estimate of the MCID in HCV, and this value may be used as the basis for

132 retest reliability, and we have provided the MCID estimates for FVC% in SSc-ILD based changes at 12 m

133 ICIQ-UI SF scores for the UI app reached the MCID threshold (2.52 points) in 4 weeks (-2.9 [95% CI, -

134 effect and determine whether it reaches the MCID.

135 vere disability improved by greater than the MCID for DHI, wherease 4 of 7 patients (57%) improved by

136 patients (57%) improved by greater than the MCID for the ABC Scale, and 3 of 7 patients (43%) improv

137 patients (43%) improved by greater than the MCID for the FES-I.

138 , p<0.0001) and decrement at least twice the MCID in bowel QOL (1.52 [1.26-1.83], p<0.0001).

139 , p<0.0001) and decrement at least twice the MCID in urinary QOL (1.41 [1.17-1.68], p=0.0002).

140 ic surgery had a significant shorter time to MCID for physical and functional well-being QoL domains

141 interest, these yield QoL profiles, time to MCID, and number needed to treat.

142 tests), but there is currently no validated MCID for exacerbations.

143 g the long axis of the tibia during walking (MCID, unknown).

144 rovement in HbA1c varied in association with MCID category.

145 ment Scale (ESAS) (range, 0-90 [best-worst]; MCID, 5.7 points).