Abstract:Background: The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score is one of the most common and adapted outcome scales in hallux valgus surgery. However, AOFAS is predominantly physician based and not patient based. Although it may be straightforward to derive statistical significance, it may not equate to the true subjective benefit of the patient’s experience. There is a paucity of literature defining MCID for AOFAS in hallux valgus surgery although it could have a great impact on the accuracy of analyzing surgical outcomes. Hence, the primary aim of this study was to define the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the AOFAS score in these patients, and the secondary aim was to correlate patients’ demographics to the MCID. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. A total of 446 patients were reviewed preoperatively and followed up for 2 years. An anchor question was asked 2 years postoperation: “How would you rate the overall results of your treatment for your foot and ankle condition?” (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, terrible). The MCID was derived using 4 methods, 3 from an anchor-based approach and 1 from a distribution-based approach. Anchor-based approaches were (1) mean difference in 2-year AOFAS scores of patients who answered “good” versus “fair” based on the anchor question; (2) mean change of AOFAS score preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up in patients who answered good; (3) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves method, where the area under the curve (AUC) represented the likelihood that the scoring system would accurately discriminate these 2 groups of patients. The distribution-based approach used to calculate MCID was the effect size method. There were 405 (90.8%) females and 41 (9.2%) males. Mean age was 51.2 (standard deviation [SD] = 13) years, mean preoperative BMI was 24.2 (SD = 4.1). Results: Mean preoperative AOFAS score was 55.6 (SD = 16.8), with significant improvement to 85.7 (SD = 14.4) in 2 years ( P value < .001). There were no statistical differences between demographics or preoperative AOFAS scores of patients with good versus fair satisfaction levels. At 2 years, patients who had good satisfaction had higher AOFAS scores than fair satisfaction (83.9 vs 78.1, P < .001) and higher mean change (30.2 vs 22.3, P = .015). Mean change in AOFAS score in patients with good satisfaction was 30.2 (SD = 19.8). Mean difference in good versus fair satisfaction was 7.9. Using ROC analysis, the cut-off point is 29.0, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.62. Effect size method derived an MCID of 8.4 with a moderate effect size of 0.5. Multiple linear regression demonstrated increasing age (β = −0.129, CI = −0.245, –0.013, P = .030) and higher preoperative AOFAS score (β = −0.874, CI = −0.644, –0.081, P < .001) to significantly decrease the amount of change in the AOFAS score. Conclusion: The MCID of AOFAS score in hallux valgus surgery was 7.9 to 30.2. The MCID can ensure clinical improvement from a patient’s perspective and also aid in interpreting results from clinical trials and other studies. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative series.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance

Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review

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

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

Calculation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using different methodologies: case study and practical guide

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Scales Reported in Stroke Trials: A Review

The Anchor Design of Anchor-Based Method to Determine the Minimal Clinically Important Difference: a Systematic Review

How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods

Methods to determine minimal clinically important difference]

A Statistical Inference Framework for the Minimal Clinically Important Difference

Minimal clinically important difference in Alzheimer's disease: Rapid review

PROMIS and FAAM Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics

Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma

How scoring limits the usability of minimal important differences (MIDs) as responder definition (RD): an exemplary demonstration using EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales

Minimal Clinically Important Differences for American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Score in Hallux Valgus Surgery

Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures

Clinically relevant differences in COPD health status: systematic review and triangulation

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

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Shortened Version of the DASH (QuickDASH) in People with Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Minimal Clinically Important Difference for PROMIS Physical Function in Patients With Distal Radius Fractures