Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34766096›Full record

ArticleJSES international2021

The minimal clinically important difference of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function and upper extremity computer adaptive tests and QuickDASH in the setting of elbow trauma.

Dustin J Randall, Yue Zhang, Andrew P Harris, Yuqing Qiu, Haojia Li, Andrew R Stephens, Nikolas H Kazmers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JSES international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Selecting the optimal MIC for five patient-reported outcome measures in patients with upper extremity injuries, using a systematic search and step-by-step decision tree.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Digital Rehabilitation for Elbow Pain Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dustin J RandallDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Yue ZhangDivision of Public Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Andrew P HarrisUniversity Orthopedic Surgeons, Knoxville, TN, USA.
Yuqing QiuWeill Cornell Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences, New York, NY, USA.
Haojia LiDivision of Public Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Andrew R StephensDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Nikolas H KazmersDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
University of Utah · USCornell University · USOakland University · USUniversity General Surgeons · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimal clinically important difference (MCID) estimates are useful for gauging clinical relevance when interpreting changes or differences in patient-reported outcomes scores. These values are lacking in the setting of elbow trauma. Our primary purpose was to estimate the MCID of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT), the PROMIS upper extremity (UE) CAT, and the QuickDASH using an anchor-based approach for patients recovering from elbow trauma and related surgeries. Secondarily, we aimed to estimate the MCID using the 1/2 standard deviation method. MATERIALS &

methodsAdult patients undergoing treatment for isolated elbow injuries between July 2014 and April 2020 were identified at a single tertiary academic medical center. Outcomes, including the PROMIS PF CAT v1.2/2.0, PROMIS UE CAT v1.2, and QuickDASH, were collected via a tablet computer. For inclusion, baseline (6 months before injury up to 11 days postoperatively or after injury) and follow-up (11 to 150 days postoperative or after injury) PF or UE CAT scores were required, as well as a response to an anchor question querying improvement in physical function. The MCID was calculated using (1) an anchor-based approach using the difference in mean score change between anchor groups reporting "No change" and "Slightly Improved/Improved" and (2) the 1/2 standard deviation method.

resultsOf the 146 included patients, the mean age was 46 ± 18 years and 67 (46%) were women. Most patients (129 of 146 or 88%) were recovering from surgery, and the remaining 12% were recovering from nonoperatively managed fractures and/or dislocations. The mean follow-up was 157 ± 192 days. Scores for each instrument improved significantly between baseline and follow-up. Anchor-based MCID values were calculated as follows: 5.7, 4.6, and 5.3 for the PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS UE CAT, and QuickDASH, respectively. MCID values estimated using the 1/2 standard deviation method were 4.3, 4.8, and 11.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS UE CAT, and QuickDASH, respectively.

conclusionsIn the setting of elbow trauma, we propose MCID ranges of 4.3 to 5.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, 4.6 to 4.8 for the PROMIS UE CAT, and 5.3 to 11.7 for the QuickDASH. These values will provide a framework for clinical relevance when interpreting clinical outcomes studies, or powering clinical trials, for populations recovering from trauma.

Indexed as

ElbowMinimal clinically important difference (MCID)Orthopaedic/orthopedic traumaPROMIS physical function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT)PROMIS upper extremity (UE) computer adaptive testQuickDash

Identifiers

PMID34766096
PMCPMC8568814
OpenAlexW3191241270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.