Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27624720›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016

Minimal important improvement thresholds for the six-minute walk test in a knee arthroplasty cohort: triangulation of anchor- and distribution-based methods.

J M Naylor, K Mills, M Buhagiar, R Fortunato, R Wright

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. A Combination ofInternational journal of medical sciences · 2019
    Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Improved walking distance and range of motion predict patient satisfaction after TKA.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

J M NaylorWhitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, Orthopaedic Department, Liverpool Hospital, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool BC, 1871, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Justine.Naylor@sswahs.nsw.gov.au.
K MillsFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
M BuhagiarSouth West Sydney Clinical School, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
R FortunatoPhysiotherapy Department, Campbelltown Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
R WrightOccupational Therapy Department, Fairfield Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Camden and Campbelltown Hospitals · AUFairfield Hospital · AULiverpool Hospital · AUMacquarie University · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is a commonly used metric for measuring change in mobility after knee arthroplasty, however, what is considered an improvement after surgery has not been defined. The determination of important change in an outcome assessment tool is controversial and may require more than one approach. This study, nested within a combined randomised and observational trial, aimed to define a minimal important improvement threshold for the 6MWT in a knee arthroplasty cohort through a triangulation of methods including patient-perceived anchor-based thresholds and distribution-based thresholds.

methodsIndividuals with osteoarthritis performed a 6MWT pre-arthroplasty then at 10 and 26 weeks post-surgery. Each rated their perceived improvement in mobility post-surgery on a 7-point transition scale anchored from "much better" to "much worse". Based on these responses the cohort was dichotomised into 'improved' and 'not improved'. The thresholds for patient-perceived improvements were then identified using two receiver operating curve methods producing sensitivity and specificity indices. Distribution-based change thresholds were determined using two methods utilising effect size (ES). Agreement between the anchor- and distribution-based methods was assessed using kappa.

resultsOne hundred fifty-eight from 166 participants in the randomised cohort and 222 from 243 in the combined randomised and observational cohort were included at 10 and 26 weeks, respectively. The slightly or more patient-perceived improvement threshold at 26 weeks (an absolute improvement of 26 m) was the only one to demonstrate sensitivity and specificity results both better than chance. At 10- and 26-weeks, the ES based on the mean change score divided by the baseline standard deviation (SD), was an absolute change of 24.5 and 37.9 m, respectively. The threshold based on a moderate ES (a 0.5 SD of the baseline score) was a change of 55.0 and 55.4 m at 10- and 26-weeks, respectively. The level of agreement between the 26-week anchor-based and distribution-based minimal absolute changes was very good (k = 0.88 (95 % CI 0.81 0.95)).

conclusionA valid threshold of improvement for the 6MWT can only be proposed for changes identified from baseline to 26 weeks post-surgery. The level of agreement between anchor- and distribution-based methods indicates that a true minimal or more threshold of meaningful improvement following surgery is likely within the ranges proposed by the triangulation of all four methods, that is, 26 to 55 m.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeAgedArea Under CurveExercise TestFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareSensitivity and SpecificityArthroplastyArthroplasty, kneeClinimetricMobility testSix-minute walk test

Identifiers

PMID27624720
PMCPMC5022203
OpenAlexW2519094057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.