Analyzing Clinical Significance: The Percentage-Change Approach

The hardware and bandwidth for this mirror is donated by dogado GmbH, the Webhosting and Full Service-Cloud Provider. Check out our Wordpress Tutorial.
If you wish to report a bug, or if you are interested in having us mirror your free-software or open-source project, please feel free to contact us at mirror[@]dogado.de.

2025-11-26

Introduction

The percentage-change approach defines clinical significance based on the relative change in a patient’s score from baseline. This method is common in clinical trials where a specific reduction in symptoms, such as “a 50% improvement,” is a primary endpoint for defining treatment response.

A change is considered clinically significant if it meets or exceeds a predefined Percentage-Change Cutoff (PCC). For example, if the PCC is 50% (or 0.5), any patient who shows at least a 50% reduction in symptoms would be classified as “Improved”.

A key consideration for this method is that it is highly dependent on the patient’s baseline score. A 10-point drop is a 50% improvement for a patient starting at 20 points, but only a 25% improvement for a patient starting at 40 points. This characteristic should be kept in mind when interpreting the results.

This vignette demonstrates how to use the cs_percentage() function to apply this approach.

library(clinicalsignificance)

Basic Analysis

Let’s analyze the claus_2020 dataset. A common benchmark for depression treatment trials is a 50% reduction in symptom scores. We will set this as our pct_improvement cutoff.

# Analyze change using a 50% improvement cutoff
pct_results <- claus_2020 |>
  cs_percentage(
    id = id,
    time = time,
    outcome = bdi,
    pre = 1,
    post = 4,
    pct_improvement = 0.5
  )

summary(pct_results)
#> 
#> ---- Clinical Significance Results ----
#> 
#> Approach:                 Percentage-based
#> Percentage Improvement:   50.00%
#> Percentage Deterioration: 50.00%
#> Better is:                Lower
#> N (original):             43
#> N (used):                 40
#> Percent used:             93.02%
#> Outcome:                  bdi
#> 
#> Category     |  N | Percent
#> ---------------------------
#> Improved     | 11 |  27.50%
#> Unchanged    | 29 |  72.50%
#> Deteriorated |  0 |   0.00%

The summary shows that based on this 50% criterion, about 28% of patients are classified as having improved.

Visualizing the Results

The plot for the percentage-change approach looks similar to those for the anchor- and distribution-based methods. However, the shaded area is now determined by the percentage-change cutoff relative to each individual’s starting score. This means the boundaries of the “unchanged” area are not parallel lines.

plot(pct_results)
#> Ignoring unknown labels:
#> • colour : "Group"

Grouped Analysis

We can also explore if the proportion of “responders” differs between the treatment groups (TAU vs. PA).

# Grouped analysis with a 50% improvement cutoff
pct_grouped <- claus_2020 |>
  cs_percentage(
    id = id,
    time = time,
    outcome = bdi,
    pre = 1,
    post = 4,
    pct_improvement = 0.5,
    group = treatment
  )

summary(pct_grouped)
#> 
#> ---- Clinical Significance Results ----
#> 
#> Approach:                 Percentage-based
#> Percentage Improvement:   50.00%
#> Percentage Deterioration: 50.00%
#> Better is:                Lower
#> N (original):             43
#> N (used):                 40
#> Percent used:             93.02%
#> Outcome:                  bdi
#> 
#> Group |     Category |  N | Percent | Percent by Group
#> ------------------------------------------------------
#> TAU   |     Improved |  2 |   5.00% |           10.53%
#> TAU   |    Unchanged | 17 |  42.50% |           89.47%
#> TAU   | Deteriorated |  0 |   0.00% |            0.00%
#> PA    |     Improved |  9 |  22.50% |           42.86%
#> PA    |    Unchanged | 12 |  30.00% |           57.14%
#> PA    | Deteriorated |  0 |   0.00% |            0.00%

The results suggest that a much higher proportion of patients in the Placebo Amplification (PA) group (42.9%) achieved a 50% symptom reduction compared to the Treatment as Usual (TAU) group (10.5%).

The plot clearly visualizes this difference:

plot(pct_grouped)

Using Different Cutoffs for Improvement and Deterioration

A useful feature of cs_percentage() is the ability to set different cutoffs for improvement and deterioration via the pct_deterioration argument. For instance, in some contexts, a small worsening of symptoms (e.g., 20%) might already be considered a significant deterioration, while a larger change (e.g., 50%) is required for improvement.

pct_asymmetric <- claus_2020 |>
  cs_percentage(
    id = id,
    time = time,
    outcome = bdi,
    pre = 1,
    post = 4,
    pct_improvement = 0.5,
    pct_deterioration = 0.2 # A smaller threshold for worsening
  )

summary(pct_asymmetric)
#> 
#> ---- Clinical Significance Results ----
#> 
#> Approach:                 Percentage-based
#> Percentage Improvement:   50.00%
#> Percentage Deterioration: 20.00%
#> Better is:                Lower
#> N (original):             43
#> N (used):                 40
#> Percent used:             93.02%
#> Outcome:                  bdi
#> 
#> Category     |  N | Percent
#> ---------------------------
#> Improved     | 11 |  27.50%
#> Unchanged    | 26 |  65.00%
#> Deteriorated |  3 |   7.50%

These binaries (installable software) and packages are in development.
They may not be fully stable and should be used with caution. We make no claims about them.
Health stats visible at Monitor.