Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome', Larun et al. - New version October 2019 and new date December 2024

Yes, but I managed their improvement with just a few exhortations: does this make me a super-pro?

As far as normalizing scores are concerned, I'd have problems doing that with such a strange distribution: there's far too much clumping at the top end for relatively healthy folk, so the variety of scores is too limited. Remember that it is only a 21 point score (0 to 100 in steps of 5).

What comes over loud and clear from the CFQ analysis is that the scale does not go low enough to properly distribute the range of disability. A bimodal score of 11 covers the Likert scores 33 to 26 with reasonable density: as you move to higher bimodal scores, the clumping gets tighter.

 

It’s also worth considering the MID in relation to the smallest possible improvement for a patient on the actual scale. For the CFQ, this is one point. So the PACE threshold of two points effectively means “a clinically useful improvement is anything bigger than the smallest possible improvement for an individual patient. For the CFQ, this is one point. So the PACE threshold of two points effectively means “a clinically useful improvement is anything bigger than the smallest possible improvement for a patient”.

And for the SF 36 physical function, the smallest possible improvement is five points (for moving from, for example, “limited a little” to lnot limited at all” on any one of 10 questions).

Some of the MID emerging from the studies are less than one unit better than “the smallest improvement that can be measured for an individual patient”. That doesn’t seem right.

 

Yes, That's probably my mistake. The value of 3 for the SF-36, for example, was a normalised value. I'm trying to figure out how to recalculate them to the raw score because the study that Larun et al. cited (Ward et al. 2014) also used a normalised. It gave a MID of 7.1. I suspect the raw value will be bigger.

 

I believe to convert, the formula would be: (normalised score * healthy population SD used to make normalised score) /10.

 

I've been searching but can't really find the full explanation. I suspect it's explained in this reference:

• Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B, Maruish ME. User's manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey. 2nd ed. QualityMetric Incorporated; Lincoln, RI: 2007.

I found some info here: http://www.med.uottawa.ca/courses/CMED6203/Index_notes/SF36 fn .pdf

 

Yes, I have seen something similar before. Z-scores are generally calculated like that in statistics.

Just to clarify that I was talking about converting the MID.

If I recall correctly population scores for the SF 36 physical functioning scale used for normalised scoring tend to be around 24.

 

You could be right.

Swigris et al. 2010 said they recalculated the MID raw value for Kosinski et al. 2000 (reported as 7.7) to a norm-based value of 3.

Your formula is not far off 3 x 24/10 =7.2

So for the Ward et al. study the raw value would be 7.1 x 24/10 = 17 points. If we would use a more conservative estimate for the SD, say 20, it would still result in a doubling of the norm-based MID.

 

Some more info from here: https://c-path.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017_session5_scoringfinal.pdf

EDIT: if we use the formula here, the 7.1 norm-based score would correspond to an original score of 16.54.

 

But we know the general population data for SF36 PF is non normal due to hitting the ceiling of 100 for healthy people. (Eg. The first hit on a google search for "sf36 physical functioning non normal distribution" is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17515490/ )

So do any of these manipulations using means and standard deviations actually mean anything if it's non normal?

 

I don't know. We're mostly doing the calculation to get the original value.

The study the Cochrane review cites for the minimal important difference (MID) for physical function uses a norm-based value of 7.1 Norm-based values are not very relevant to the MID estimate needed and they tend to be substantially lower than the original value. Perhaps the authors overlooked this. The info I posted about norm-based value was just to figure out how to recalculate the norm-based value to its original value. Using the formula above, the original value would be 16.5. Even if the figures used, such as the standard deviation are a little bit different, it would probably still result in a doubling of the figure.

So this seems to be the case: the Cochrane review says that a MID of 7 for physical function is common but one of the studies it refers to actually found a MID of 16.5.

 

Although I did train as a statistician, it was 20 years ago, and I misspoke here. The distribution of residuals is important when regressing one variable on another, say when looking at association between two variables x and y, but not for comparison of means. For the quantity of data here (PACE trial and meta-analyses), parametric methods (that assume a normal distribution) are OK, and give a reasonable estimate, but, as I hope you can see, they do not describe the data particularly well. That the groups show differences, and those differences are statistically significant is not in doubt. However, it's the reasons *why* there are differences, and whether those differences are clinically significant that's important. Statsing the hell out of the data won't tell you anything about those reasons.

And using stats to find a "clinically important difference" on what is already a subjective scale, rather than just asking the patients themselves what matters to them, is not going to give you the "right" answer.

 

So I'm going to change the original summary I've posted on Minimal Important Differences (MID).

The studies of Ward et al. 2014 and Swigris et al. 2010 gave values of 7.1 and 3 as MID but these were norm-based. Recalculated these would be somewhere around 16.5 and 7.1. Thanks to Dolphin for pointing this out.

I've also found another study (Quintana et al. 2005) on patients who've had a hip joint replacement which reported a high MID of 20.40 for SF-36 physical function. It would be interesting to find more of these MID for sf-36 physical function. The provisional overview thus far looks something like this:



My conclusion is a bit changed now: it seems that the authors of the Cochrane review took the lowest value of 7 for MID.

There's still something weird with the Wyrwhich et al. 2007 study as it reports estimates lower than 5. As @Simon M pointed out that's smaller than the smallest possible improvement on the scale. The authors note this in the text:

I guess this is a consequence of the anchoring method. They usually substract the scores on the questionnaire corresponding with patients judgement for 'a little bit improvement' with the questionnaire scores for 'the same'. But patient's judgement of this is not perfect and questionnaire scores do not always reflect a patient's physical functioning. Sometimes the questionnaire scores for 'remained the same' will be larger than for a small improvement. I think that's why MID estimates using the anchoring method can sometimes be inadequate.

 

Please can you listen to yourself here!
Who is filling in the questionnaire? The patient.
How is the patient's physical functioning measured? By a subjective questionnaire that was filled in by the patient.
Whether they are using the anchoring method or the distribution method, both rely on data that was obtained using the patient's judgement.

See also Pitfalls and Problems section in this paper by Angst et al.

Also, don't forget that the patient's judgement and perception of their physical functioning may have been materially altered by the intervention itself, without [necessarily] affecting their underlying physical functioning.

 

True. But if you take for example half a standard deviation of a sample of patients who filled in the questionnaire, it's clear that the patients didn't determine the MID. The estimate is not their judgment even though their data was used.

The anchoring method uses a bit more of the patient's judgement but it relies on an agreement between questionnaire scores and the patient assessment of global clinical improvement. The agreement between these can be a bit messy. Sometimes the physical function score of patients who said they stayed the same will be higher than for patients who said they improved a little. That's how you get these low MID estimates that are lower than the smallest possible improvement on the scale. This is once again not necessary what patients judge the MID to be. I bet that if you would take the time to explain the problem and ask patients what they think is the MID on the scale, none of them would come up with a value that is lower than the smallest possible improvement on the scale.

 

And for many outcomes such as fatigue, mood and pain nobody knows better than the patient the levels of fatigue, pain and mood they experience. I think it is important to respect patients' ability to describe their own experience.
added (I agree that the SF36 PF has alternatives)

This is separate from two specific problems:

1) response bias eg expectation bias and "treatments" that aim to change how people feel (or at least how they describe) symptoms. (This might also apply to MID studies themelves). This is why it's important to include objective outcomes and a red flag when subjective gains are not matched by objective ones.

2) Problems that the scale fails to adequately measure what it claims to measure, eg with CFQ.

Which is a flawed approach, because it uses the global score to validate fatigue, physical function scores etc, when they are not the same thing.

I'm sure you are right. Both scales development and MID work need patients as partners. Their perspective on what matters (accurate assement of the symptom, MID) is the most important one.

Precisely.

Added JE quote.

 

x100000000000000

 

This is a bit of an abstract post of little relevence to the Cochrane review!

I'd normally agree with "nobody knows better", but I'm not sure how much we should "respect patients' ability to describe their own experience". It seems like humans often aren't very good at that sort of thing.

If we were to ask people to rate how happy they were on a scale of 1-100, those answers would only be of limited use letting us work out who was happiest, what was associated with happiness, etc. Even ignoring the problems you mention with response bias and the specific problems with the questions being asked, I still think that there are reasons to be cautious of self-reported states for a whole range of things.

We've seen the harm that can be done by treating patient self-reports with too little respect, and of being in a group whose self-reports are presumed to be of less worth than others, but I think there's some reason to be a bit wary of self-reports from humans as a whole.

 

Just throwing this in here:

The Jason et al. 2007 studied determined clinically significant effects for the physical function scale as follows:

 

And that's precisely why these researchers take a paternalistic attitude to conditions like ME/CFS - simultaneously allowing subjective self-report (because it suits them to do so), whilst at the same time dismissing patients' experience of harm or lack of improvement.