ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2020
Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Athletes Undergoing Arthroscopic Correction of Sports-Related Femoroacetabular Impingement: The Percentage of Possible Improvement.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arthroscopy versus mini-open surgery for femoroacetabular impingement : A systematic review of clinical outcomes.Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Pooled it
- Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable state (PASS), minimally detectable change (MDC), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in patients who have undergone arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026Pooled it
- The anchor design of anchor-based method to determine the minimal clinically important difference: a systematic review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Pooled it
- A literature review exploring whether meaningful change threshold estimates for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures vary depending on baseline severity.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Early Impact of Hip Arthroscopy on the Resolution of Symptom Burden in Athletes With Femoroacetabular Impingement.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS) Applied to the SF-36 in Patients Who Underwent Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Does Preoperative Activity Level Affect Postoperative Clinical Outcomes Following Hip Arthroscopy in Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome (FAIS) Patients?Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Quantifying Jump Height Using Markerless Motion Capture with a Single Smartphone.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Sex-Based Differences in Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Review
- Hip Range of Motion Is Increased After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022Review
- Minimum clinically important difference of the Social Functioning in Dementia Scale (SF-DEM): cross-sectional study and Delphi survey.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Arthroscopic Correction of Sports-Related Femoroacetabular Impingement in Competitive Athletes: 2-Year Clinical Outcome and Predictors for Achieving Minimal Clinically Important Difference.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
- PROMIS Global-10 poorly correlates with legacy outcomes for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasures of clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes within orthopaedics are becoming a minimum requirement to establish the success of an intervention. PURPOSE: To (1) define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at 2 years postoperatively in competitive athletes undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery for symptomatic, sports-related femoroacetabular impingement utilizing existing anchor- and distribution-based methods and (2) derive a measure of the MCID using the percentage of possible improvement (POPI) method and compare against existing techniques. STUDY
designCohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.
methodsThere were 2 objective outcome measures-the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)-administered at baseline and 2 years postoperatively. External anchor questions were used to determine the MCID through mean change, mean difference, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) techniques. Distribution-based calculations consisted of 0.5 SD, effect size, and standard error of measurement techniques. The POPI was calculated alongside each technique as an achieved percentage change of maximum available improvement for each athlete relative to the individual baseline score. The impact of the preoperative baseline score on the MCID was assessed by assigning athletes to groups determined by baseline percentiles. Statistical analysis was performed, with
resultsThere were 576 athletes (96% male; mean age, 25.9 ± 5.7 years). The MCID score change (and POPI) for the mHHS and SF-36 ranged from 2.4 to 16.7 (21.6%-63.6%) and from 3.3 to 24.9 (22.1%-57.4%), respectively. The preoperative threshold value for achieving the ROC-determined MCID was 80.5 and 86.5 for the mHHS and 70.1 and 72.4 for the SF-36 for the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) score- and POPI-calculated MCID, respectively. Through the commonly used mean change method, 40.0% (mHHS) and 42.4% (SF-36) of athletes were unable to achieve the MCID because of high baseline scores and PROM ceiling effects compared with 0% when the POPI technique was used. A highly significant difference for the overall MCID was observed between preoperative baseline percentile groups for the mHHS (
conclusionThe MCID defined by an absolute value of improvement was unable to account for postoperative progress in a large proportion of higher functioning athletes. The POPI technique negated associated ceiling effects, was unrestricted by the baseline score, and may be more appropriate in quantifying clinically important improvement.
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.