The minimal important difference is a valuable metric in ascertaining the clinical relevance of a treatment, offering valuable guidance in patient management. There is a lack of available evidence concerning this metric in the context of outcomes related to female urinary incontinence, which might negatively impact clinical decision-making.
To summarize the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures associated with urinary incontinence, calculated according to both distribution- and anchor-based methods.
This is a systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy including the main terms for urinary incontinence and minimal important difference were used in five different databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus) in 09 June 2021 and were updated in January 09, 2024 with no limits for date, language or publication status. Studies that provided minimal important difference (distribution- or anchor-based methods) for patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence outcomes were included. The study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two different researchers. Only studies that reported the minimal important difference according to anchor-based methods were assessed by credibility and certainty of the evidence. When possible, absolute minimal important differences were calculated for each study separately according to the mean change of the group of participants that slightly improved.
Twelve studies were included. Thirteen questionnaires with their respective minimal important differences reported according to distribution (effect size, standard error of measurement, standardized response mean) and anchor-based methods were found. Most of the measures for anchor methods did not consider the smallest difference identified by the participants to calculate the minimal important difference. All reports related to anchor-based methods presented low credibility and very low certainty of the evidence. We pooled 20 different estimates of minimal important differences using data from primary studies, considering different anchors and questionnaires.
There is a high variability around the minimal important difference related to patient-reported outcome measures for urinary incontinence outcomes according to the method of analysis, questionnaires, and anchors used, however, the credibility and certainty of the evidence to support these is still limited.
BMC medical research methodology. 2024 Mar 08*** epublish ***
Jordana Barbosa-Silva, Letícia Bojikian Calixtre, Daniela Von Piekartz, Patricia Driusso, Susan Armijo-Olivo
Women's Health Research Laboratory (LAMU), Physical Therapy Department, Federal University of São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luís, km 235, Monjolinho, São Carlos, SP, 13565-905, Brazil. ., Universidade de Pernambuco, Campus-Petrolina, Brazil., Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, University of Applied Sciences - Hochschule Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany., Women's Health Research Laboratory (LAMU), Physical Therapy Department, Federal University of São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luís, km 235, Monjolinho, São Carlos, SP, 13565-905, Brazil.