ArticleThe Journal of hand surgery2020
The Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the PROMIS and QuickDASH Instruments in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Patient Population.
Article in The Journal of hand surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pearls and pitfalls of PROMIS clinically significant outcomes in orthopaedic surgery.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Pooled it
- Casting vs Surgical Treatment of Children With Medial Epicondyle Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Extended Follow-up of Local Steroid Injection for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Outcomes Following Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface Surgery and Associations With Preoperative Mental Health: A Retrospective Analysis of Upper-Extremity Neuromas.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Reported Minimal Clinically Important Differences for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Hand and Upper-Extremity Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Functional Outcomes of Miniplate/Screw Versus Suzuki Frame Fixation in Eaton Type III Middle Phalanx Base Fractures: A Case Series.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Post-traumatic proximal radioulnar synostosis treated with (modified) reverse Sauvé-Kapandji procedure: a case report.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Article
- Evidence of non-response bias in patient reported outcome measurement information system surveys.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Patient Outcomes of Thumb Arthroplasty Using a Hybrid Technique for Severe Osteoarthritis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Long-Term Epidural Patching Outcomes and Predictors of Benefit in Patients With Suspected CSF Leak Nonconforming to ICHD-3 Criteria.Neurology · 2024Article
- Establishing the Patient Acceptable Symptom State in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population for the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE Computer Adaptive Tests.The Journal of hand surgery · 2024Article
- A Pilot Feasibility Trial of an Upper Extremity Assistive System.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2023Article
- An Evaluation of Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Minimal Clinically Important Difference Usage in Hand Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- The Relationship Between Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction With Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition.The Journal of hand surgery · 2023Article
- Effect of Perioperative Corticosteroid Administration on Early Postoperative Range of Motion and Functional Outcomes Following Dupuytren's Fasciectomy.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Determining the clinical significance of the PROMIS physical function score in the setting of femur fractures.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- Benign nerve tumours in the upper limb: a registry-based study of symptoms and surgical outcome.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Mini TightRope Suspension Allows for Accelerated Rehabilitation following Ligament Reconstruction Interposition Arthroplasty of the Basal Joint of the Thumb.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Clinical Recovery After Surgical Treatment for Hand Ischemia From Vasospastic and Occlusive Disease Using PROMIS.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is used in research and clinical settings as a benchmark to gauge improvement following treatment. The purpose of this study was to provide anchor-based MCID estimates for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and legacy instruments in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population.
methodsAdult patients (≥18 years) seeking care at a tertiary academic outpatient hand surgery clinic completed patient-reported outcome measures on tablet computers between January 2015 and August 2017. Data were collected at baseline and at 6 ± 2 weeks of follow-up. The PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), and Pain Interference (PI) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) instruments were administered, along with the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH). A mean change anchor-based method was used to estimate MCIDs by comparing scores between anchor groups reporting no change versus slightly improved in terms of function and pain.
resultsScores for each instrument significantly improved over the study period. With significant differences in scores between groups reporting no change and slightly improved function, anchor-based MCID estimates were calculated as follows: 2.1 for the PROMIS UE CAT, 1.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, and 6.8 for the QuickDASH. There was no significant difference in PROMIS PI CAT scores between anchor groups when queried for level of pain improvement, precluding estimation of an anchor-based MCID.
conclusionsWe have provided anchor-based MCID estimates for the PROMIS UE CAT, PROMIS PF CAT, and the QuickDASH for a general nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population. These values may be useful in future research for informing power calculations and when interpreting whether the magnitude of change on these instruments is clinically significant at a population level. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides clinicians with a reference for values that may reflect clinically meaningful changes in scores for patient-reported outcome instruments commonly utilized in the current hand surgery literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.