Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34854345›Full record

ReviewThe American journal of sports medicine2023

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance.

David A Bloom, Daniel J Kaplan, Edward Mojica, Eric J Strauss, Guillem Gonzalez-Lomas, Kirk A Campbell, Michael J Alaia, Laith M Jazrawi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The American journal of sports medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07364188 (Bronchodilator Response in COPD and Asthma), which is not on this map. Cited by 61 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 9 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.

NCT07364188 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Bronchodilator Response in COPD and Asthma: Correlation Between Spirometry, IOS Indices, and Dyspnea Relief

TypeobservationalSponsorAllergi- og Lungeklinikken, ElsinoreRan2026 to 2027Enrolled120ConditionsAsthma Bronchiale, COPD, Bronchodilation, SpirometryArmsBronchodilator
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes trial (TC4): a Bayesian pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Cumulative surgeon volume is associated with improved outcomes following hip arthroscopy: A national registry study.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

David A BloomNYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Daniel J KaplanNYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Edward MojicaNYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Eric J StraussNYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Guillem Gonzalez-LomasNYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Kirk A CampbellNYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5633-1760
Michael J AlaiaNYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Laith M JazrawiNYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a term synonymous with orthopaedic clinical research over the past decade. The term represents the smallest change in a patient-reported outcome measure that is of genuine clinical value to patients. It has been derived in a myriad of ways in existing orthopaedic literature. PURPOSE: To describe the various modalities for deriving the MCID. STUDY

designNarrative review; Level of evidence, 4.

methodsThe definitions of common MCID determinations were first identified. These were then evaluated by their clinical and statistical merits and limitations.

resultsThere are 3 primary ways for determining the MCID: anchor-based analysis, distribution-based analysis, and sensitivity- and specificity-based analysis. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses with respect to its ability to evaluate the patient's clinical status change from baseline to posttreatment. Anchor-based analyses are inherently tied to clinical status yet lack standardization. Distribution-based analyses are the opposite, with strong foundations in statistics, yet they fail to adequately address the clinical status change. Sensitivity and specificity analyses offer a compromise of the other methodologies but still rely on a somewhat arbitrarily defined global transition question.

conclusionThis current concepts review demonstrates the need for (1) better standardization in the establishment of MCIDs for orthopaedic patient-reported outcome measures and (2) better study design-namely, until a universally accepted MCID derivation exists, studies attempting to derive the MCID should utilize the anchor-based within-cohort design based on Food and Drug Administration recommendations. Ideally, large studies reporting the MCID as an outcome will also derive the value for their populations. It is important to consider that there may be reasonable replacements for current derivations of the MCID. As such, future research should consider an alternative threshold score with a more universal method of derivation.

Indexed as

Minimal Clinically Important DifferenceOrthopedicsClinical RelevanceHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSensitivity and Specificityclinical assessmenteducationgrading scalesstatistics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.