4.6 Review

Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used hip-, knee-, foot-, and ankle-specific questionnaires: a systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue -, Pages 44-57

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.017

Keywords

Minimum important difference; MCID; Lower extremity outcome scores; Patient-reported outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has become the most important psychometric factor for interpreting change in individual's responses over time from the patient's perspective, evaluating study results and planning sample sizes. The purpose was to synthesize and critically appraise MCID of the most frequently used hip-, knee-, foot-, and ankle-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Study Design and Setting: A search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from each site's respective inception through January 2019 for MCID in 25 PROs. The studies reporting their results with anchor-based method were included. Results: 228 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 48 were included in the final evaluation. Our synthesis provides a comprehensive assessment of MCID for 16 disease or joint specific PROs. MCID of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (33.3%), International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (14.5%) and Knee Injury, and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (14.5%) was found to be the most commonly presented PROs. The studies mainly (85%) used the receiver operating curve analysis to elicit MCID. Conclusion: MCID is increasingly used as a measure of patient's improvement. However, MCID varied based on the analytic methods, study population, type of disease, the baseline status, change in values and treatments, and patient demographics. Therefore, it should be interpreted with caution. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available