scholarly journals The minimum clinically important difference: which direction to take

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 850-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. H. P. Draak ◽  
B. T. A. de Greef ◽  
C. G. Faber ◽  
I. S. J. Merkies ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Clinically Important Difference

Establishing the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in NDI and mJOA for Adult Cervical Deformity

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. S50
Author(s):  
Alexandra Soroceanu ◽  
Jeffrey L. Gum ◽  
Michael P. Kelly ◽  
Peter G. Passias ◽  
Justin S. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Cervical Deformity ◽  
Clinically Important Difference

Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 471-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott L. Parker ◽  
Stephen K. Mendenhall ◽  
David N. Shau ◽  
Owoicho Adogwa ◽  
William N. Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Stenosis ◽  
Detectable Change ◽  
Calculation Methods ◽  
Recurrent Stenosis ◽  
Minimum Detectable Change ◽  
Clinically Important Difference

Object Spine surgery outcome studies rely on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements to assess treatment effect, but the extent of improvement in the numerical scores of these questionnaires lacks a direct clinical meaning. Because of this, the concept of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been used to measure the critical threshold needed to achieve clinically relevant treatment effectiveness. As utilization of spinal fusion has increased over the past decade, so has the incidence of same-level recurrent stenosis following index lumbar fusion, which commonly requires revision decompression and fusion. The MCID remains uninvestigated for any PROs in the setting of revision lumbar surgery for this pathology. Methods In 53 consecutive patients undergoing revision surgery for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis–associated back and leg pain, PRO measures of back and leg pain were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively, using the visual analog scale for back pain (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Physical and Mental Component Summary categories of the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12 PCS and MCS) for quality of life, Zung Depression Scale (ZDS), and EuroQol-5D health survey (EQ-5D). Four established anchor-based MCID calculation methods were used to calculate MCID (average change; minimum detectable change; change difference; and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis) for 2 separate anchors (health transition index of the SF-36 and the satisfaction index). Results All patients were available for 2-year PRO assessment. Two years after surgery, a significant improvement was observed for all PROs assessed. The 4 MCID calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each of the PROs (VAS-BP 2.2–6.0, VAS-LP 3.9–7.5, ODI 8.2–19.9, SF-12 PCS 2.5–12.1, SF-12 MCS 7.0–15.9, ZDS 3.0–18.6, and EQ-5D 0.29–0.52). Each patient answered synchronously for the 2 anchors, suggesting both of these anchors are equally appropriate and valid for this patient population. Conclusions The same-level recurrent stenosis surgery-specific MCID is highly variable based on calculation technique. The “minimum detectable change” approach is the most appropriate method for calculation of MCIDs in this population because it was the only method to reliably provide a threshold above the 95% confidence interval of the unimproved cohort (greater than the measurement error). Based on this method, the MCID thresholds following neural decompression and fusion for symptomatic same-level recurrent stenosis are 2.2 points for VAS-BP, 5.0 points for VAS-LP, 8.2 points for ODI, 2.5 points for SF-12 PCS, 10.1 points for SF-12 MCS, 4.9 points for ZDS, and 0.39 QALYs for EQ-5D.

Detecting change in community participation with the Enfranchisement scale of the community participation indicators

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921552110521
Author(s):  
Jessica Kersey ◽  
Lauren Terhorst ◽  
Joy Hammel ◽  
Carolyn Baum ◽  
Joan Toglia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Community Participation ◽  
Functional Independence Measure ◽  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Functional Independence ◽  
Baseline Score ◽  
Sensitivity To Change ◽  
Detectable Change ◽  
Change Scores ◽  
Minimum Detectable Change ◽  
Clinically Important Difference

Objective This study determined the sensitivity to change of the Enfranchisement scale of the Community Participation Indicators in people with stroke. Data sources We analyzed data from two studies of participants with stroke: an intervention study and an observational study. Main measures The Enfranchisement Scale contains two subscales: the Importance subscale (feeling valued by and contributing to the community; range: 14–70) and the Control subscale (choice and control: range: 13–64). Data analysis Assessments were administered 6 months apart. We calculated minimum detectable change and minimal clinically important difference. Results The Control subscale analysis included 121 participants with a mean age of 61.2 and mild-moderate disability (Functional Independence Measure, mean = 97.9, SD = 24.7). On the Control subscale, participants had a mean baseline score of 51.4 (SD = 10.4), and little mean change (1.3) but with large variation in change scores (SD = 11.5). We found a minimum detectable change of 9 and a minimum clinically important difference of 6. The Importance subscale analysis included 116 participants with a mean age of 60.7 and mild-moderate disability (Functional Independence Measure, mean = 98.9, SD = 24.5). On the Importance subscale, participants had a mean baseline score of 44.1 (SD = 12.7), and again demonstrated little mean change (1.08) but with large variation in change scores (SD = 12.6). We found a minimum detectable change of 11 and a minimum clinically important difference 7. Conclusions The Control subscale required 9 points of change, and the Importance subscale required 11 points of change, to achieve statistically and clinically meaningful changes, suggesting adequate sensitivity to change.

scholarly journals What is the Minimum Clinically Important Difference for the WOMAC Index After TKA?

2018 ◽  
Vol 476 (10) ◽  
pp. 2005-2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas D. Clement ◽  
Michelle Bardgett ◽  
David Weir ◽  
James Holland ◽  
Craig Gerrand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Womac Index ◽  
Clinically Important Difference

Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Orthopaedic Literature, Part I: Upper Extremity

JBJS Reviews ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. e1-e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne G. Copay ◽  
Andrew S. Chung ◽  
Blake Eyberg ◽  
Neil Olmscheid ◽  
Norman Chutkan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Orthopaedic Literature

357 Comparative Effectiveness between Primary and Revision Foraminotomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (CN_suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 282-282
Author(s):  
Emily Hu ◽  
Jianning Shao ◽  
Heath P Gould ◽  
Roy Xiao ◽  
Colin Haines ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Functional Score ◽  
Foraminal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Functional Scores

Abstract INTRODUCTION Foraminotomy has demonstrated clinical benefit for the management of lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS). Although many patients undergo multiple foraminotomies, there is little data comparing primary foraminotomy (PF) and revision foraminotomy (RF) in terms of cost and quality of life (QOL) outcomes. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients undergoing foraminotomy for LFS. QOL instruments (EQ-5D, PDQ, and PHQ-9) were prospectively collected between 2008 and 2016. Outcome measures included improvement in postoperative QOL, perioperative cost, and QOL minimum clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS >579 procedures were eligible 476 (82%) PF and 103 (18%) RF. A significantly higher proportion of males underwent RF than PF (71% vs. 59%, P = 0.03) and PF was done on a significantly higher number of vertebral levels (2.2 vs. 2.0, P = 0.04). There were no other significant differences in demographics. Preoperatively, mean PDQ-Functional scores (50 vs. 54, P = 0.04), demonstrated significantly poorer QOL in the RF cohort. Postoperatively, EQ-5D index showed significant improvement in both the PF (0.547?0.648, P < 0.0001) and the RF (0.507?0.648, P < 0.0001) cohorts. Similarly, total PHQ-9 improved significantly in the PF cohort (7.84?5.91, P < 0.001) and in the RF cohort (8.55?5.53, P = 0.02), as did total PDQ (PF: 77?63, P < 0.0001; RF: 85?70, P = 0.04). QOL scores were also compared between groups preoperatively and postoperatively. The only significant difference between PF and RF was observed in preoperative PDQ-Functional score (50 vs. 54, P = 0.04). The proportion of patients achieving an MCID was not significantly associated with cohort. Finally, perioperative cost did not differ significantly between cohorts (PF: $13,383 vs. RF: $13,595, P = 0.82). CONCLUSION RF patients had poorer preoperative PDQ-Functional scores, but both PF and RF produce significant improvement in all measures. There was no difference in QOL outcomes or cost between PF and RF. Therefore, while one procedure does not clearly have superior cost effectiveness than the other, both achieved significant effectiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document