TY - JOUR
T1 - Most-Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Within Otolaryngology - Revisiting the Minimal Clinically Important Difference
T2 - A Review
AU - Peterson, Andrew M.
AU - Miller, Brevin
AU - Ioerger, Patrick
AU - Hentati, Firas
AU - Doering, Michelle M.
AU - Kallogjeri, Dorina
AU - Piccirillo, Jay F.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding/Support: Research reported in this publication was supported by the NCATS and NIH under award numbers UL1TR002345 and TL1TR002344 (B.M., P.I., F.H., J.P.).
Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Peterson, Kallogjeri, and Piccirillo reported royalties with the commercial use of the Nasal Outcome Score for Epistaxis in Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia (NOSE HHT). Dr Piccirillo reported grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) (T32DC000022) during the conduct of the study; Dr Piccirillo reported royalties for the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT), Symptoms of Noctural Obstruction and Related Events (SNORE), and Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating (ODOR) instruments paid from Washington University. No other disclosures were reported.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/3/9
Y1 - 2023/3/9
N2 - Importance: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allow clinicians and researchers to assess health-related information from a patient's perspective. These measures have been used more frequently over the last several decades, but an associated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is needed to optimize their utility. This narrative review identified the top 100 most-cited otolaryngology-related PROM development and validation publications and assessed the presence and characteristics of the PROMs' associated MCID. Observations: In this narrative review, a literature search in Scopus and Web of Science was conducted on June 29, 2022, using keywords related to PROM development and validation studies in otolaryngology and reference lists. Studies that met the definition of a PROM and assessed an otolaryngologic disorder or study population were included for full-text review. After full-text review of 188 articles, the top 100 most-cited PROM development and validation publications, resulting in 106 total PROMs, were chosen for review. A total of 39 (37%) of the identified PROMs had an associated MCID. Of those reporting an MCID, 14 (35.9%) used an anchor-based method, 12 (30.8%) used a distribution-based method, 10 (25.6%) used both, and 3 (7.7%) did not specify or used neither method. Rhinology had the greatest number of PROMs with an associated MCID (16 of 24, 66%), and pediatrics had the fewest (1 of 13, 7.7%). The median number of citations of PROMs with an MCID was higher than those without an MCID. Conclusions and Relevance: The majority of the most-cited PROMs in otolaryngology lack an associated MCID. These data indicated that there are a multitude of PROMs that have been cited hundreds of times and used for decades without the ability to identify whether a particular change in score on the instrument is clinically meaningful. There is a need to determine and validate MCIDs for commonly used PROMs to aid clinical research and trial interpretation.
AB - Importance: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allow clinicians and researchers to assess health-related information from a patient's perspective. These measures have been used more frequently over the last several decades, but an associated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is needed to optimize their utility. This narrative review identified the top 100 most-cited otolaryngology-related PROM development and validation publications and assessed the presence and characteristics of the PROMs' associated MCID. Observations: In this narrative review, a literature search in Scopus and Web of Science was conducted on June 29, 2022, using keywords related to PROM development and validation studies in otolaryngology and reference lists. Studies that met the definition of a PROM and assessed an otolaryngologic disorder or study population were included for full-text review. After full-text review of 188 articles, the top 100 most-cited PROM development and validation publications, resulting in 106 total PROMs, were chosen for review. A total of 39 (37%) of the identified PROMs had an associated MCID. Of those reporting an MCID, 14 (35.9%) used an anchor-based method, 12 (30.8%) used a distribution-based method, 10 (25.6%) used both, and 3 (7.7%) did not specify or used neither method. Rhinology had the greatest number of PROMs with an associated MCID (16 of 24, 66%), and pediatrics had the fewest (1 of 13, 7.7%). The median number of citations of PROMs with an MCID was higher than those without an MCID. Conclusions and Relevance: The majority of the most-cited PROMs in otolaryngology lack an associated MCID. These data indicated that there are a multitude of PROMs that have been cited hundreds of times and used for decades without the ability to identify whether a particular change in score on the instrument is clinically meaningful. There is a need to determine and validate MCIDs for commonly used PROMs to aid clinical research and trial interpretation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149936841&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.4703
DO - 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.4703
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36729451
AN - SCOPUS:85149936841
SN - 2168-6181
VL - 149
SP - 261
EP - 276
JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
IS - 3
ER -