{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,16]],"date-time":"2026-02-16T22:08:47Z","timestamp":1771279727208,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":31,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,1]],"date-time":"2026-02-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1769904000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,2]],"date-time":"2026-02-02T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1769990400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":1,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"University of Innsbruck and Medical University of Innsbruck"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Support Care Cancer"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,2]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      The interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology research lacks a shared understanding of clinical relevance among interest groups. Terms like\n                      <jats:italic>minimal important differences<\/jats:italic>\n                      and\n                      <jats:italic>clinically meaningful change<\/jats:italic>\n                      aim to aid interpretation but remain inconsistently conceptualized. This study explores interest-holders\u2019 perspectives to support setting-specific definitions of clinical relevance in PRO research.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>An online survey was distributed via international networks to multi-professional interest-holders. Responses to an open-ended question regarding participants\u2019 understanding of clinical relevance were analyzed using qualitative content analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns within the quotes.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      The survey included 92 participants: clinical practitioners (38.5%), academic researchers (47.3%), industry researchers (8.8%), and patients\/patient representatives (rep.) (5.5%). Five clusters emerged reflecting facets of clinical relevance: (a) patient value (e.g., impact on well-being), (b) practical implications (e.g., treatment changes), (c) external criteria (e.g., physiological changes), (d) statistical approaches (e.g., 10% difference), and (e) proxy value (e.g., physician\u2019s perspective). Practitioners primarily focused on patient value (55.6%), while academic researchers showed a similar distribution but with greater variance across clusters. In contrast, industry researchers more frequently emphasized external criteria (20.0%) and proxy value (20.0%) compared to other groups.\n                      <jats:italic>Patient value<\/jats:italic>\n                      and\n                      <jats:italic>statistical approaches<\/jats:italic>\n                      were not mentioned by the same participants, nor were\n                      <jats:italic>external criteria<\/jats:italic>\n                      and\n                      <jats:italic>practical implications<\/jats:italic>\n                      .\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Conceptual understanding of clinical relevance varies by professional background, highlighting its multifaceted nature. These findings, identifying distinct conceptual clusters across interest groups, provide a foundation for developing harmonized, context-specific definitions of clinical relevance in PRO research.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00520-026-10387-6","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,2]],"date-time":"2026-02-02T09:47:24Z","timestamp":1770025644000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Unraveling assumptions about clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome data"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"34","author":[{"given":"Ines S.","family":"Rathgeber","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Daniela","family":"Krepper","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Lisa M.","family":"Wintner","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Johannes M.","family":"Giesinger","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Monika","family":"Sztankay","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,2]]},"reference":[{"key":"10387_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eclinm.2023.102413","volume":"68","author":"M Paravathaneni","year":"2024","unstructured":"Paravathaneni M, Safa H, Joshi V et al (2024) 15 years of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials leading to GU cancer drug approvals: a systematic review on the quality of data reporting and analysis. EClinicalMedicine 68:102413. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.eclinm.2023.102413","journal-title":"EClinicalMedicine"},{"key":"10387_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00520-023-07681-y","volume":"31","author":"DK Smith","year":"2023","unstructured":"Smith DK (2023) Conscientious use of patient-reported outcome measures in supportive care. Support Care Cancer 31:226. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00520-023-07681-y","journal-title":"Support Care Cancer"},{"key":"10387_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"35","DOI":"10.1186\/s41687-024-00711-1","volume":"8","author":"D Cella","year":"2024","unstructured":"Cella D, Nolla K, Peipert JD (2024) The challenge of using patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: how do we get there? J Patient Rep Outcomes 8:35. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41687-024-00711-1","journal-title":"J Patient Rep Outcomes"},{"key":"10387_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"118","DOI":"10.18553\/jmcp.2020.20313","volume":"27","author":"T Schmidt","year":"2021","unstructured":"Schmidt T, Valuck T, Perkins B et al (2021) Improving patient-reported measures in oncology: a payer call to action. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 27:118\u2013126. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.18553\/jmcp.2020.20313","journal-title":"J Manag Care Spec Pharm"},{"key":"10387_CR5","unstructured":"FDA (2021) Draft Guidance: Core Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials"},{"key":"10387_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"228","DOI":"10.1186\/s12955-018-1055-z","volume":"16","author":"A Ousmen","year":"2018","unstructured":"Ousmen A, Touraine C, Deliu N et al (2018) Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 16:228. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12955-018-1055-z","journal-title":"Health Qual Life Outcomes"},{"key":"10387_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"145","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arthro.2022.08.020","volume":"39","author":"JD Harris","year":"2023","unstructured":"Harris JD, Brand JC, Cote M et al (2023) Guidelines for proper reporting of clinical significance, including minimal clinically important difference, patient acceptable symptomatic state, substantial clinical benefit, and maximal outcome improvement. Arthroscopy 39:145\u2013150. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.arthro.2022.08.020","journal-title":"Arthroscopy"},{"key":"10387_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s12955-024-02294-3","volume":"22","author":"S Bourke","year":"2024","unstructured":"Bourke S, Bennett B, Oluboyede Y et al (2024) Estimating the minimally important difference for the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 22:81. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12955-024-02294-3","journal-title":"Health Qual Life Outcomes"},{"key":"10387_CR9","unstructured":"Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (2023) General Methods - Version 7.0. https:\/\/www.iqwig.de\/methoden\/allgemeine-methoden_version-7-0.pdf"},{"key":"10387_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"458","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2023.12.012","volume":"27","author":"NA Clarke","year":"2024","unstructured":"Clarke NA, Braverman J, Worthy G et al (2024) A review of meaningful change thresholds for EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G within oncology. Value Health 27:458\u2013468. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jval.2023.12.012","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"10387_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"171","DOI":"10.1586\/erp.11.9","volume":"11","author":"MT King","year":"2011","unstructured":"King MT (2011) A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11:171\u2013184. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1586\/erp.11.9","journal-title":"Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res"},{"key":"10387_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"407","DOI":"10.1016\/0197-2456(89)90005-6","volume":"10","author":"R Jaeschke","year":"1989","unstructured":"Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407\u2013415","journal-title":"Control Clin Trials"},{"key":"10387_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"81","DOI":"10.1081\/copd-200050651","volume":"2","author":"HJ Sch\u00fcnemann","year":"2005","unstructured":"Sch\u00fcnemann HJ, Puhan M, Goldstein R et al (2005) Measurement properties and interpretability of the Chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). COPD 2:81\u201389. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1081\/copd-200050651","journal-title":"COPD"},{"key":"10387_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3307","DOI":"10.1007\/s00520-012-1484-x","volume":"20","author":"L Zeng","year":"2012","unstructured":"Zeng L, Chow E, Zhang L et al (2012) An international prospective study establishing minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C30 in cancer patients with bone metastases. Support Care Cancer 20:3307\u20133313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00520-012-1484-x","journal-title":"Support Care Cancer"},{"key":"10387_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1144","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1524-4733.2009.00570.x","volume":"12","author":"RL Askew","year":"2009","unstructured":"Askew RL, Xing Y, Palmer JL et al (2009) Evaluating minimal important differences for the FACT-Melanoma quality of life questionnaire. Value Health 12:1144\u20131150. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1524-4733.2009.00570.x","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"10387_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00520-023-08036-3","volume":"31","author":"M Y\u0131lmaz","year":"2023","unstructured":"Y\u0131lmaz M, Erdi\u015f E, U\u00e7ar M et al (2023) Evaluation of quality of life in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma receiving chemoradiotherapy: a cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer 31:600. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00520-023-08036-3","journal-title":"Support Care Cancer"},{"key":"10387_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2107","DOI":"10.1093\/annonc\/mdq726","volume":"22","author":"J Maringwa","year":"2011","unstructured":"Maringwa J, Quinten C, King M et al (2011) Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. Ann Oncol 22:2107\u20132112. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/annonc\/mdq726","journal-title":"Ann Oncol"},{"key":"10387_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"117","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1524-4733.2005.08202.x","volume":"8","author":"KJ Yost","year":"2005","unstructured":"Yost KJ, Sorensen MV, Hahn EA et al (2005) Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument. Value Health 8:117\u2013127. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1524-4733.2005.08202.x","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"10387_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"837","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-010-9636-2","volume":"19","author":"CF Snyder","year":"2010","unstructured":"Snyder CF, Blackford AL, Brahmer JR et al (2010) Needs assessments can identify scores on HRQOL questionnaires that represent problems for patients: an illustration with the Supportive Care Needs Survey and the QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 19:837\u2013845. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11136-010-9636-2","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"10387_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"135","DOI":"10.1007\/s11060-016-2280-0","volume":"131","author":"A-K Hickmann","year":"2017","unstructured":"Hickmann A-K, Hechtner M, Nadji-Ohl M et al (2017) Evaluating patients for psychosocial distress and supportive care needs based on health-related quality of life in primary brain tumors: a prospective multicenter analysis of patients with gliomas in an outpatient setting. J Neurooncol 131:135\u2013151. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11060-016-2280-0","journal-title":"J Neurooncol"},{"key":"10387_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"102","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012","volume":"61","author":"D Revicki","year":"2008","unstructured":"Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D et al (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:102\u2013109. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"10387_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1327","DOI":"10.1093\/neuonc\/noab037","volume":"23","author":"L Dirven","year":"2021","unstructured":"Dirven L, Musoro JZ, Coens C et al (2021) Establishing anchor-based minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in glioma patients. Neuro Oncol 23:1327\u20131336. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/neuonc\/noab037","journal-title":"Neuro Oncol"},{"key":"10387_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.injury.2023.04.051","volume":"54","author":"NW Willigenburg","year":"2023","unstructured":"Willigenburg NW, Poolman RW (2023) The difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance. The case of minimal important change, non-inferiority trials, and smallest worthwhile effect. Injury 54:110764. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.injury.2023.04.051","journal-title":"Injury"},{"key":"10387_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"188","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2017.06.009","volume":"89","author":"R Jayadevappa","year":"2017","unstructured":"Jayadevappa R, Cook R, Chhatre S (2017) Minimal important difference to infer changes in health-related quality of life-a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 89:188\u2013198. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2017.06.009","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"10387_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mayring P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey G, Mruck K (eds) Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, 1. Auflage. VS Verlag f\u00fcr Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-531-92052-8_42"},{"key":"10387_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"107","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x","volume":"62","author":"S Elo","year":"2008","unstructured":"Elo S, Kyng\u00e4s H (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 62:107\u2013115. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x","journal-title":"J Adv Nurs"},{"key":"10387_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1277","DOI":"10.1177\/1049732305276687","volume":"15","author":"H-F Hsieh","year":"2005","unstructured":"Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15:1277\u20131288. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1049732305276687","journal-title":"Qual Health Res"},{"key":"10387_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"349","DOI":"10.1093\/intqhc\/mzm042","volume":"19","author":"A Tong","year":"2007","unstructured":"Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19:349\u2013357. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/intqhc\/mzm042","journal-title":"Int J Qual Health Care"},{"key":"10387_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"136","DOI":"10.1186\/s12955-020-01344-w","volume":"18","author":"Y Mouelhi","year":"2020","unstructured":"Mouelhi Y, Jouve E, Castelli C et al (2020) How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods. Health Qual Life Outcomes 18:136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12955-020-01344-w","journal-title":"Health Qual Life Outcomes"},{"key":"10387_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"285","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-004-0705-2","volume":"14","author":"KW Wyrwich","year":"2005","unstructured":"Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N et al (2005) Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 14:285\u2013295. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11136-004-0705-2","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"issue":"12","key":"10387_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e683","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(25)00520-0","volume":"26","author":"CD Amdal","year":"2025","unstructured":"Amdal CD, Falk RS, Alanya A, Schlichting M, Roychoudhury S, Bhatnagar V, Wintner LM, Regnault A, Ingelg\u00e5rd A, Coens C, le Cessie S, Holzner B, Chang J, Taphoorn M, Cislo P, Giesinger JM, Cappelleri JC, Pawar V, Ten Seldam S, Papadopoulos EJ, SISAQOL-IMI Consortium (2025) SISAQOL-IMI consensus-based guidelines to design, analyse, interpret, and present patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials. Lancet Oncol 26(12):e683\u2013e693. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S1470-2045(25)00520-0","journal-title":"Lancet Oncol"}],"container-title":["Supportive Care in Cancer"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00520-026-10387-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00520-026-10387-6","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00520-026-10387-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,16]],"date-time":"2026-02-16T21:04:37Z","timestamp":1771275877000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s00520-026-10387-6"}},"subtitle":["A qualitative study on perspectives of different interest groups"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,2]]},"references-count":31,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,2]]}},"alternative-id":["10387"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00520-026-10387-6","relation":{},"ISSN":["0941-4355","1433-7339"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0941-4355","type":"print"},{"value":"1433-7339","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,2]]},"assertion":[{"value":"13 February 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"23 January 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"2 February 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Medical University Innsbruck (14th April 2022\/No. 1018).","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval"}},{"value":"Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent to participate"}},{"value":"Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":5,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflict of interest"}}],"article-number":"155"}}