Abstract:Background: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a term synonymous with orthopaedic clinical research over the past decade. The term represents the smallest change in a patient-reported outcome measure that is of genuine clinical value to patients. It has been derived in a myriad of ways in existing orthopaedic literature. Purpose: To describe the various modalities for deriving the MCID. Study Design: Narrative review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The definitions of common MCID determinations were first identified. These were then evaluated by their clinical and statistical merits and limitations. Results: There are 3 primary ways for determining the MCID: anchor-based analysis, distribution-based analysis, and sensitivity- and specificity-based analysis. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses with respect to its ability to evaluate the patient’s clinical status change from baseline to posttreatment. Anchor-based analyses are inherently tied to clinical status yet lack standardization. Distribution-based analyses are the opposite, with strong foundations in statistics, yet they fail to adequately address the clinical status change. Sensitivity and specificity analyses offer a compromise of the other methodologies but still rely on a somewhat arbitrarily defined global transition question. Conclusion: This current concepts review demonstrates the need for (1) better standardization in the establishment of MCIDs for orthopaedic patient-reported outcome measures and (2) better study design—namely, until a universally accepted MCID derivation exists, studies attempting to derive the MCID should utilize the anchor-based within-cohort design based on Food and Drug Administration recommendations. Ideally, large studies reporting the MCID as an outcome will also derive the value for their populations. It is important to consider that there may be reasonable replacements for current derivations of the MCID. As such, future research should consider an alternative threshold score with a more universal method of derivation.

An Introduction to Clinical Significance: An Alternative Index of Intervention Effect for Group Experimental Designs

The Importance of the Principle of Clinical Significance—Defining Significant to Whom and for What Purpose: A Response to Tingey, Lambert, Burlingame, and Hansen

clinicalsignificance: Clinical Significance Analyses of Intervention Studies in R

Assessing clinical significance: Does it matter which method we use?

Clinical Significance Methods: A Comparison of Statistical Techniques

Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.

Clinical significance methods: Which one to use and how useful are they?

Assessing Clinical Significance: Proposed Extensions to Method

Alternatives to the P value: connotations of significance

Using clinical significance in psychotherapy outcome research: The need for a common procedure and validity data

Distinguishing Clinical from Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research

A Sample Size Planning Approach That Considers Both Statistical Significance and Clinical Significance

Can testing clinical significance reduce false positive rates in randomized controlled trials? A snap review

Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches.

Testing practical relevance of treatment effects

The importance of clinical importance when determining the target difference in sample size calculations

From Bayes Through Marginal Utility to Effect Sizes: A Guide to Understanding the Clinical and Statistical Significance of the Results of Autism Research Findings

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance

How to Use A Subgroup Analysis

A Utilitarian Perspective on Risk Quantification for Clinical Significance in Binary Outcomes

A Statistical Inference Framework for the Minimal Clinically Important Difference