Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26040969›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2015

The Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation Score for Patients With Distal Radius Fractures.

Monique M J Walenkamp, Robert-Jan de Muinck Keizer, J Carel Goslings, Lara M Vos, Melvin P Rosenwasser, Niels W L Schep

Erratum issued 2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 102 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02957240 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Graded Motor Imagery for Women at Risk for Developing Type I CRPS Following Closed Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: A Pilot Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MinnesotaRan2018 to 2024Enrolled15ConditionsMusculoskeletal Pain, Fractures, Closed, Distal Radius Fracture, Complex Regional Pain SyndromesArmsStandard Care, Motor Representation Techniques
NCT03517514 completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Investigating All-Cause 30-Day Hospital Readmisisons in Patients Discharged From a Tertiary Teaching Hospital With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Diagnosis

TypeobservationalSponsorThe Methodist Hospital Research InstituteRan2018 to 2019Enrolled102ConditionsAcute Heart FailureArmsPhysical Therapy service
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 224 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Selecting the optimal MIC for five patient-reported outcome measures in patients with upper extremity injuries, using a systematic search and step-by-step decision tree.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Does position of the wrist during cast immobilisation in patients with distal radius fractures affect outcome?European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Rehabilitation for distal radial fractures in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Comparison of surgical and conservative therapy in older patients with distal radius fracture: a prospective randomized clinic al trial.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Monique M J WalenkampAcademic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, m.m.walenkamp@amc.nl.
Robert-Jan de Muinck Keizer
J Carel Goslings
Lara M Vos
Melvin P Rosenwasser
Niels W L Schep
University of Amsterdam · NLColumbia University Irving Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) is a commonly used instrument in upper extremity surgery and in research. However, to recognize a treatment effect expressed as a change in PRWE, it is important to be aware of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and the minimum detectable change (MDC). The MCID of an outcome tool like the PRWE is defined as the smallest change in a score that is likely to be appreciated by a patient as an important change, while the MDC is defined as the smallest amount of change that can be detected by an outcome measure. A numerical change in score that is less than the MCID, even when statistically significant, does not represent a true clinically relevant change. To our knowledge, the MCID and MDC of the PRWE have not been determined in patients with distal radius fractures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) What is the MCID of the PRWE score for patients with distal radius fractures? (2) What is the MDC of the PRWE?

methodsOur prospective cohort study included 102 patients with a distal radius fracture and a median age of 59 years (interquartile range [IQR], 48-66 years). All patients completed the PRWE questionnaire during each of two separate visits. At the second visit, patients were asked to indicate the degree of clinical change they appreciated since the previous visit. Accordingly, patients were categorized in two groups: (1) minimally improved or (2) no change. The groups were used to anchor the changes observed in the PRWE score to patients' perspectives of what was clinically important. We determined the MCID using an anchor-based receiver operator characteristic method. In this context, the change in the PRWE score was considered a diagnostic test, and the anchor (minimally improved or no change as noted by the patients from visit to visit) was the gold standard. The optimal receiver operator characteristic cutoff point calculated with the Youden index reflected the value of the MCID.

resultsIn our study, the MCID of the PRWE was 11.5 points. The area under the curve was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) for the pain subscale and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57-0.85) for the function subscale. We determined the MDC to be 11.0 points.

conclusionsWe determined the MCID of the PRWE score for patients with distal radius fractures using the anchor-based approach and verified that the MDC of the PRWE was sufficiently small to detect our MCID. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We recommend using an improvement on the PRWE of more than 11.5 points as the smallest clinically relevant difference when evaluating the effects of treatments and when performing sample-size calculations on studies of distal radius fractures.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Self EvaluationPatient Outcome AssessmentAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadius FracturesWrist Joint

Identifiers

PMID26040969
PMCPMC4562929
OpenAlexW1521037341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.