Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33233343›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020

Determining the Minimal Clinical Important Difference for Medication Quantification Scale III and Morphine Milligram Equivalents in Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.

Lisa Goudman, Ann De Smedt, Patrice Forget, Maarten Moens

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05461092 (Regional Nerve Blocks to Improve Analgesia and Recovery in Older Adults Undergoing Spinal Fusion), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT05461092 early_phase1recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Regional Nerve Blocks to Improve Analgesia and Recovery in Older Adults Undergoing Spinal Fusion

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of IowaRan2024 to 2026Enrolled50ConditionsDelirium, Pain, Back, Spinal Fusion, Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane BlockArmsThoracolumbar Interfascial Plane (TLIP) Block of bupivacaine, Blood Test, 3D CAM Delirium Severity Scoring, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale, Numerical Rating Score (NRS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Lisa GoudmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Jette, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2271-9855
Ann De SmedtCenter for Neurosciences (C4N), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Jette, Belgium.
Patrice ForgetInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, NHS Grampian, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5772-8439
Maarten MoensDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Jette, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0577-5449

Funding

Medtronic Europe Sarl independent research grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Medication Quantification Scale III (MQS) is a tool to represent the negative impact of medication. A reduction in medication can serve as an indicator to evaluate treatment success. However, no cut-off value has yet been determined to evaluate whether a decrease in medication is clinically relevant. Therefore, the objective is to estimate the thresholds for the MQS and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) that best identify a clinically relevant important improvement for patients. Data from the Discover registry, in which patients with failed back surgery syndrome were treated with high-dose spinal cord stimulation, were used. Patient satisfaction was utilized to evaluate a clinically important outcome 12 months after stimulation. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were applied to determine the minimal clinical important difference (MCID). Distribution-based methods revealed a value of 4.28 for the MQS and 33.61 for the MME as MCID. Anchor-based methods indicated a percentage change score of 41.2% for the MQS and 28.2% for the MME or an absolute change score of 4.72 for the MQS and 22.65 for the MME. For assessing a treatment outcome, we recommend using the percentage change score, which better reflects a clinically important outcome and is not severely influenced by high medication intake at baseline.

Indexed as

clinical importanceminimal clinically important differenceresponsiveness

Identifiers

PMID33233343
PMCPMC7700681

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.