Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28495818›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform

Tahira Devji, Gordon H Guyatt, Lyubov Lytvyn, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Farid Foroutan, Behnam Sadeghirad, Rachelle Buchbinder, Rudolf W Poolman, Ian A Harris, Alonso Carrasco-Labra and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. 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

12 authors.

Tahira DevjiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Lyubov LytvynOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Romina Brignardello-PetersenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Farid ForoutanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Behnam SadeghiradDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Rachelle BuchbinderDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Rudolf W PoolmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Joint Research, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ian A HarrisSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Alonso Carrasco-LabraDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Reed A C SiemieniukDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Per O VandvikDepartment of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust-Gjøvik, Gjøvik, Norway.

Funding

OLFACTORY RECEPTORSF32DC000190 · NIDCD · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI ZHANG, YINONG · 1995 to 1998
–
CIHR DC0190SRNIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC000190
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify the most credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient important outcomes in patients with degenerative knee disease, and to inform OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for knee symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included original studies documenting the development of anchor-based MIDs for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reported in randomised controlled trials included in the linked systematic review and meta-analysis and judged by the parallel

results13 studies reported 95 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 8 PRO instruments and/or their subdomains that measure knee pain, function or HRQoL. All studies used a transition rating (global rating of change) as the anchor to ascertain the MID. Among PROs with more than 1 estimated MID, we found wide variation in MID values. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. We identified the following most credible MIDs: Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; pain: 12, function: 13), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS; pain: 12, activities of daily living: 8) and EuroQol five dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D; 0.15).

conclusionsWe were able to distinguish between more and less credible MID estimates and provide best estimates for key instruments that informed evidence presentation in the associated systematic review and judgements made by the Rapid Recommendation panel. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016047912.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeActivities of Daily LivingHumansKnee JointOsteoarthritis, KneePain ManagementPain MeasurementPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicdegenerative knee diseaseMinimal clinically important differenceMinimal Important differenceosteoarthritispatient reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID28495818
PMCPMC5777462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.