How should minimally important change (MIC) scores for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods
Background The Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), scored 0-28, is the core outcome instrument recommended for measuring patient-reported atopic eczema symptoms in clinical trials. To date, two published studies have broadly concurred that the MIC of the POEM is 3 points. Further assessment o...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Wiley
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50131/ |
| _version_ | 1848798163128811520 |
|---|---|
| author | Howells, Laura Ratib, Sonia Chalmers, J.R. Bradshaw, Lucy Thomas, K.S. |
| author_facet | Howells, Laura Ratib, Sonia Chalmers, J.R. Bradshaw, Lucy Thomas, K.S. |
| author_sort | Howells, Laura |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Background
The Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), scored 0-28, is the core outcome instrument recommended for measuring patient-reported atopic eczema symptoms in clinical trials. To date, two published studies have broadly concurred that the MIC of the POEM is 3 points. Further assessment of the minimally important change (MIC) of POEM in different populations, and using a variety of methods, will improve interpretability of the POEM in research and clinical practice.
Objectives
To calculate the smallest detectable change in the POEM and estimate the MIC of the POEM using a variety of methods in a trial dataset of children with moderate to severe atopic eczema.
Methods
This study used distribution-based and anchor-based methods to calculate the MIC of the POEM in children with moderate to severe eczema.
Results
Data was collected from 300 children. The smallest detectable change was 2.12. The MIC estimates were 1.07 (0.2 SD) and 2.68 (0.5 SD) based on distribution-based methods, were 3.09 to 6.13 based on patient-reported anchor-based methods, and were 3.23 to 5.38 based on investigator-reported anchor-based methods.
Conclusions
We recommend the following thresholds are used to interpret changes in POEM scores: ≤ 2, unlikely to be a change beyond measurement error; 2.1 to 2.9, a small change detected that is likely to be beyond measurement error but may not be clinically important; 3 to 3.9, probably a clinically important change; 4+, very likely to be a clinically important change. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T20:15:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-50131 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T20:15:24Z |
| publishDate | 2018 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-501312020-05-04T19:39:08Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50131/ How should minimally important change (MIC) scores for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods Howells, Laura Ratib, Sonia Chalmers, J.R. Bradshaw, Lucy Thomas, K.S. Background The Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), scored 0-28, is the core outcome instrument recommended for measuring patient-reported atopic eczema symptoms in clinical trials. To date, two published studies have broadly concurred that the MIC of the POEM is 3 points. Further assessment of the minimally important change (MIC) of POEM in different populations, and using a variety of methods, will improve interpretability of the POEM in research and clinical practice. Objectives To calculate the smallest detectable change in the POEM and estimate the MIC of the POEM using a variety of methods in a trial dataset of children with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Methods This study used distribution-based and anchor-based methods to calculate the MIC of the POEM in children with moderate to severe eczema. Results Data was collected from 300 children. The smallest detectable change was 2.12. The MIC estimates were 1.07 (0.2 SD) and 2.68 (0.5 SD) based on distribution-based methods, were 3.09 to 6.13 based on patient-reported anchor-based methods, and were 3.23 to 5.38 based on investigator-reported anchor-based methods. Conclusions We recommend the following thresholds are used to interpret changes in POEM scores: ≤ 2, unlikely to be a change beyond measurement error; 2.1 to 2.9, a small change detected that is likely to be beyond measurement error but may not be clinically important; 3 to 3.9, probably a clinically important change; 4+, very likely to be a clinically important change. Wiley 2018-05-31 Article PeerReviewed Howells, Laura, Ratib, Sonia, Chalmers, J.R., Bradshaw, Lucy and Thomas, K.S. (2018) How should minimally important change (MIC) scores for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods. British Journal of Dermatology, 178 (5). pp. 1135-1142. ISSN 1365-2133 Minimally important change; Minimum clinically important difference; Smallest detectable change; Atopic eczema; Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16367 doi:10.1111/bjd.16367 doi:10.1111/bjd.16367 |
| spellingShingle | Minimally important change; Minimum clinically important difference; Smallest detectable change; Atopic eczema; Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure Howells, Laura Ratib, Sonia Chalmers, J.R. Bradshaw, Lucy Thomas, K.S. How should minimally important change (MIC) scores for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods |
| title | How should minimally important change (MIC) scores for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods |
| title_full | How should minimally important change (MIC) scores for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods |
| title_fullStr | How should minimally important change (MIC) scores for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods |
| title_full_unstemmed | How should minimally important change (MIC) scores for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods |
| title_short | How should minimally important change (MIC) scores for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods |
| title_sort | how should minimally important change (mic) scores for the patient oriented eczema measure (poem) be interpreted?: a validation using varied methods |
| topic | Minimally important change; Minimum clinically important difference; Smallest detectable change; Atopic eczema; Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50131/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50131/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50131/ |