Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Minimal clinically important difference on the Beck Depression Inventory - II according to the patient's perspective

  • K. S. Button (a1), D. Kounali (a1), L. Thomas (a1), N. J. Wiles (a1), T. J. Peters (a2), N. J. Welton (a1), A. E. Ades (a1) and G. Lewis (a3)...

Abstract

Background

The Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition (BDI-II) is widely used in research on depression. However, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is unknown. MCID can be estimated in several ways. Here we take a patient-centred approach, anchoring the change on the BDI-II to the patient's global report of improvement.

Method

We used data collected (n = 1039) from three randomized controlled trials for the management of depression. Improvement on a ‘global rating of change’ question was compared with changes in BDI-II scores using general linear modelling to explore baseline dependency, assessing whether MCID is best measured in absolute terms (i.e. difference) or as percent reduction in scores from baseline (i.e. ratio), and receiver operator characteristics (ROC) to estimate MCID according to the optimal threshold above which individuals report feeling ‘better’.

Results

Improvement in BDI-II scores associated with reporting feeling ‘better’ depended on initial depression severity, and statistical modelling indicated that MCID is best measured on a ratio scale as a percentage reduction of score. We estimated a MCID of a 17.5% reduction in scores from baseline from ROC analyses. The corresponding estimate for individuals with longer duration depression who had not responded to antidepressants was higher at 32%.

Conclusions

MCID on the BDI-II is dependent on baseline severity, is best measured on a ratio scale, and the MCID for treatment-resistant depression is larger than that for more typical depression. This has important implications for clinical trials and practice.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Minimal clinically important difference on the Beck Depression Inventory - II according to the patient's perspective
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Minimal clinically important difference on the Beck Depression Inventory - II according to the patient's perspective
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Minimal clinically important difference on the Beck Depression Inventory - II according to the patient's perspective
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

* Address for correspondence: Dr K. S. Button, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK. (Email: kate.button@bristol.ac.uk)

References

Hide All
APA (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn (DSM-IV). American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.
Beck, A, Steer, RA, Brown, GK (1996). Beck Depression Inventory – Second Edition: Manual. The Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX.
Chalder, M, Wiles, NJ, Campbell, J, Hollinghurst, SP, Haase, AM, Taylor, AH, Fox, KR, Costelloe, C, Searle, A, Baxter, H, Winder, R, Wright, C, Turner, KM, Calnan, M, Lawlor, DA, Peters, TJ, Sharp, DJ, Montgomery, AA, Lewis, G (2012). Facilitated physical activity as a treatment for depressed adults: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 344, e2758.
Claeskens, G, Hjort, NL (2008). Model Selection and Model Averaging. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
D'Agostino, RB, Weintraub, M (1995). Meta-analysis: a method for synthesizing research. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 58, 605616.
Dunlop, BW, Li, T, Kornstein, SG, Friedman, ES, Rothschild, AJ, Pedersen, R, Ninan, P, Keller, M, Trivedi, MH (2011). Concordance between clinician and patient ratings as predictors of response, remission, and recurrence in major depressive disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research 45, 96103.
Fitzpatrick, R (1998). Evaluating Patient-based Outcome Measures for Use in Clinical Trials. Core Research, on behalf of the NCCHTA: Alton.
Forkmann, T, Scherer, A, Boecker, M, Pawelzik, M, Jostes, R, Gauggel, S (2011). The Clinical Global Impression Scale and the influence of patient or staff perspective on outcome. BMC Psychiatry 11, 83.
Furukawa, TA, Akechi, T, Azuma, H, Okuyama, T, Higuchi, T (2007). Evidence-based guidelines for interpretation of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 27, 531534.
Hardin, JW & Hilbe, JM (2007). Generalized Linear Models and Extensions. Stata Press: College Station, TX.
Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal 327, 557560.
Hiroe, T, Kojima, M, Yamamoto, I, Nojima, S, Kinoshita, Y, Hashimoto, N, Watanabe, N, Maeda, T, Furukawa, TA (2005). Gradations of clinical severity and sensitivity to change assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory-II in Japanese patients with depression. Psychiatry Research 135, 229235.
Jacobson, NS, Truax, P (1991). Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59, 1219.
Jaeschke, R, Singer, J, Guyatt, GH (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials 10, 407415.
Kelly, MJ, Dunstan, FD, Lloyd, K, Fone, DL (2008). Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods. BMC Psychiatry 8, 10.
Lewis, G, Mulligan, J, Wiles, N, Cowen, P, Craddock, N, Ikeda, M, Grozeva, D, Mason, V, Nutt, D, Sharp, D, Tallon, D, Thomas, L, O'Donovan, MC, Peters, TJ (2011). Polymorphism of the 5-HT transporter and response to antidepressants: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 198, 464471.
Lunn, DJ, Thomas, A, Best, N, Spiegelhalter, D (2000). WinBUGS – A Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 10, 325337.
McCullagh, P, Nelder, JA (1989). Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall: London, New York.
McGlothlin, AE, Lewis, RJ (2014). Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. Journal of the American Medical Association 312, 13421343.
McMillan, D, Gilbody, S, Richards, D (2010). Defining successful treatment outcome in depression using the PHQ-9: a comparison of methods. Journal of Affective Disorders 127, 122129.
NCCMH (2004). Depression: Management of Depression in Primary and Secondary Care. British Psychological Society and Royal College of Psychiatrists: Leicester and London [full guideline].
Pepe, MS (2003). The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Perkins, NJ, Schisterman, EF (2006). The inconsistency of ‘optimal’ cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. American Journal of Epidemiology 163, 670675.
Vanheule, S, Desmet, M, Groenvynck, H, Rosseel, Y, Fontaine, J (2008). The factor structure of the Beck Depression Inventory-II: an evaluation. Assessment 15, 177187.
Walters, SJ, Brazier, JE (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality Life Outcomes 1, 4.
Wiles, N, Thomas, L, Abel, A, Ridgway, N, Turner, N, Campbell, J, Garland, A, Hollinghurst, S, Jerrom, B, Kessler, D, Kuyken, W, Morrison, J, Turner, K, Williams, C, Peters, T, Lewis, G (2013). Cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for primary care based patients with treatment resistant depression: results of the CoBalT randomised controlled trial. Lancet 381, 375384.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed