Abstract:The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Ahead of Print. Background:The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) expresses both the extent of the improvement and the value that patients place on it. MCID use is becoming increasingly widespread to understand the clinical efficacy of a given treatment, define guidelines for clinical practice, and properly interpret trial results. However, there is still large heterogeneity in the different calculation methods.Purpose:To calculate and compare the MCID threshold values of a PROM by applying various methods and analyzing their effect on the study results interpretation.Study Design:Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.Methods:The data set used to investigate the different MCID calculation approaches was based on a database of 312 patients affected by knee osteoarthritis and treated with intra-articular platelet-rich plasma. MCID values were calculated on the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 6 months using 2 approaches: 9 methodologies referred to an anchor-based approach and 8 methodologies to a distribution-based approach. The obtained threshold values were applied to the same series of patients to understand the effect of using different MCID methods in evaluating patient response to treatment.Results:The different methods employed led to MCID values ranging from 1.8 to 25.9 points. The anchor-based methods ranged from 6.3 to 25.9, while the distribution-based ones were from 1.8 to 13.8 points, showing a 4.1× variation of the MCID values within the anchor-based methods and a 7.6× variation within the distribution-based methods. The percentage of patients who reached the MCID for the IKDC subjective score changed based on the specific calculation method used. Among the anchor-based methods, this value varied from 24.0% to 66.0%, while among the distribution-based methods, the percentage of patients reaching the MCID varied from 44.6% to 75.9%.Conclusion:This study proved that different MCID calculation methods lead to highly heterogeneous values, which significantly affect the percentage of patients achieving the MCID in a given population. The wide-ranging thresholds obtained with the different methodologies make it difficult to evaluate the real effectiveness of a given treatment questioning the usefulness of MCID, as currently available, in the clinical research.

[Morphologic differentiation of neuroblastoma cells induced by dimethyl sulfoxide].

Immunobiology of Organ Transplantation

Clinically Significant Outcome Scores in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Shoulder and Knee Surgery Are Increasing in Prevalence but Often Reported Incorrectly

Nuclear Sexing

Editorial Commentary: Shoulder Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State Metrics Provide a Foundation for Interpreting Patient-Reported Outcomes

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Changes Greatly Based on the Different Calculation Methods

Editorial Commentary: The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) Is Less Important Than It Sounds: Patients Seek to Achieve Substantial Clinical Benefits and Not Minimally Perceptible Improvements When They Undergo Arthroscopic Surgery

Measurement of patients’ acceptable symptom levels and priorities for symptom improvement in advanced lung cancer

Variability of MCID, SCB, and PASS Thresholds in Studies Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review

Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Collection and Utilization: A Survey of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Members

Outcomes that matter to patients with cancer: living longer and living better

Optical Computing: A 60-Year Adventure

Reaching Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient-Acceptable Symptomatic State for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Does Not Correlate with Patient Satisfaction

Measurement of Patients' Acceptable Symptom Levels and Priorities for Symptom Improvement in Advanced Prostate Cancer

Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review

Clinical relevance of patient-reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

Establishing Clinically Meaningful Change on Outcome Assessments Frequently Used in Trials of Mild Cognitive Impairment Due to Alzheimer’s Disease

Asymptotic Genealogy of a Branching Process and a Model of Macroevolution

A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit Using PROMIS CAT in Cervical Spine Surgery