ArticleOrthopedic research and reviews2022
Deconstructing the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID).
Article in Orthopedic research and reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Large variability in minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit and patient acceptable symptom state values among literature investigating patellar stabilization surgery: A systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- Psychometric Characteristics of the Motor Function Measure in Neuromuscular Diseases: A Systematic Review1.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2026Article
- Validation of a Patient-Created, Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United Kingdom.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- The statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials comparing hip arthroscopy to conservative management for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2026Review
- Patient-reported outcome measure comparison of two cemented primary total hip arthroplasty implant combinations for osteoarthritis: a regional New Zealand study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Observational
- Preserving joint line orientation in TKA improves short- to mid-term outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Does Restoration of Constitutional Alignment Improve Outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty?Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Clinical Validation and Outcome Measures From Bend Ease: A Novel, Sensor-Based Digital Measurement Tool for Assessing At-Home Morning Stiffness and Spinal Range of Motion in Axial Spondyloarthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Clinical cut-offs for hip- and knee arthroplasty outcome - minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Beyond statistical significance: Embracing minimal clinically important difference for better patient care.World journal of methodology · 2025Review
- Improvement in Central Sensitization Following Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Severe Preoperative Pain and Affects Postoperative Quality of Life: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Aligning metrics with meaning: considerations for measurement selection in disability evaluation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients Undergoing Flexion Distraction Chiropractic Treatment: A Case Series.Journal of chiropractic medicine · 2025Article
- A psychometric evaluation of the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ): validation and measurement invariance in inflammatory arthritis.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Article
- Yoga for psychological outcomes and quality of life in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a controlled study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- The Definition of Failure in Hip Arthroscopy May Include Factors Outside of Reoperation: A Systematic Review.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Review
- Knee osteoarthritis: disease burden, available treatments, and emerging options.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2024Review
- Evaluating the Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the Womac Osteoarthritis Index after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Smoking and secondary ACL rupture are detrimental to knee health post ACL injury-a Bayesian analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a way of dichotomizing data for assessment of success or failure based on clinically meaningful changes. The magnitude of the MCID is often misunderstood to be a singular quantity applicable across studies. However, substantial differences have been reported among MCIDs for the same outcome measures usually based upon differences extrinsic to the calculation. This study explores the effects of variabilities intrinsic to the calculation of the MCID.
methodsThe MCIDs for two knee replacement patient-reported outcomes measures of pain and function were calculated at 1 year postoperative with an integrative anchor and distribution-based method using external anchor questions and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. The effects upon the magnitude and precision of the MCIDs of varying the anchor questions, the thresholds for success/failure, and the sample sizes were examined.
resultsWide variabilities were observed in both the magnitudes and precision of the MCIDs. The threshold for success had the largest effect on magnitude of pain scores, while the sample size had the largest effect on precision. For function scores, the sample size had the largest effect on magnitude, and the anchor question had the largest effect on precision.
conclusionComparisons among MCIDs are difficult to interpret if elements of the calculations are different and influence the results. While factors extrinsic to the calculations, e.g., study population, trial design, methods of calculation, etc., are known to produce differences in the magnitude of MCIDs, this study shows that more subtle and less obvious factors intrinsic to the calculations have profound effects on both the magnitude and precision of MCIDs. Comparisons among MCIDs should be made with caution and call for greater transparency in reporting intrinsic methods. It is probably advisable for individual studies to calculate their own MCIDs and not rely on published values.
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.