• Spine · Nov 2016

    Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Spine Literature.

    • Andrew S Chung, Anne Copay, Neil Olmscheid, David Campbell, Brock Walker, and Norman Chutkan.
    • *University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Orthopedic Surgery Residency, Phoenix, Arizona †SPIRITT Research, St. Louis, MO.
    • Spine. 2016 Nov 18.

    Study DesignReview of the 2011-2015 minimum clinically important difference (MCID)-related publications in Spine, Spine Journal, Journal of Neurosurgery-Spine, and European Spine Journal.ObjectiveTo summarize the various determinations of MCID and to analyze its usage in the spine literature of the past 5 years in order to develop a basic reference to help practitioners interpret or utilize MCID.Summary Of Background DataMCID represents the smallest change in a domain of interest that is considered beneficial to a patient or clinician. Themany sources of variation in calculated MCID values and inconsistency in its utilization have resulted in confusion in the interpretation and use of MCID.MethodsAll articles from the 2011 - 2015 were reviewed. Only clinical science articles utilizing patient reported outcome scores (PROs) were included in the analysis. A keyword search was then performed to identify articles that used MCID. MCID utilization in the selected papers was characterized and recorded.ResultsMCID was referenced in264/1591(16.6%) clinical science articles that utilized PROs: 22/264 (8.3%) independently calculated MCID values and 156/264 (59.1%) used previously published MCID values as a gauge of their own results. Despite similar calculation methods, there was a two- or three-fold range in the recommended MCID values for the same instrument. Half the studies recommended MCID values within the measurement error. Most studies (97.2%) using MCID to evaluate their own results relied on generic MCID. The few studies using specific MCID (MCID calculated for narrowly defined indications or treatments) did not consistently match the characteristics of their sample to the specificity of the MCID. About 48% of the studies compared group averages instead of individual scores to the MCID threshold.ConclusionsDespite a clear interest in MCID as a measure of patientimprovement, its current developments and uses have been inconsistent.Level Of EvidenceN/A.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.