Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35670017›Full record

ArticlePhysical therapy2022

Revisiting the Concept of Minimal Detectable Change for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Bryant A Seamon, Steven A Kautz, Mark G Bowden, Craig A Velozo

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physical therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Development and Validation of Breastfeeding After Bariatric Surgery Scale.Journal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Test-Retest Reliability of the Triangle Completion Test.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bryant A SeamonRalph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3995-1052
Steven A KautzRalph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Mark G BowdenRalph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Craig A VelozoDepartment of Health Sciences and Research, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

Funding

Treating Depression and Enhancing Locomotor Recovery Post-strokeP20GM109040 · NIGMS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI KAUTZ, STEVEN A. · 2014 to 2024
$23.5M
Locomotor Experience Applied Post-Stroke (LEAPS)R01NS050506 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI DUNCAN, PAMELA W. · 2005 to 2009
$13.3M
RR&D Research Career Scientist Award ApplicationIK6RX003075 · VA · RALPH H JOHNSON VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI KAUTZ, STEVEN A. · 2020 to 2025
–
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109040NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS050506RRD VA I01 RX001935RRD VA IK6 RX003075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interpreting change is a requisite component of clinical decision making for physical therapists. Physical therapists often interpret change using minimal detectable change (MDC) values. Current MDC formulas are informed by classical test theory and calculated with group-level error data. This approach assumes that measurement error is the same across a measure's scale and confines the MDC value to the sample characteristics of the study. Alternatively, an item response theory (IRT) approach calculates separate estimates of measurement error for different locations on a measure's scale. This generates a conditional measurement error for someone with a low, middle, or high score. Error estimates at the measure-level can then be used to determine a conditional MDC (cMDC) value for individual patients based on their unique pre- and post-score combination. cMDC values can supply clinicians with a means for using individual score data to interpret change scores while providing a personalized approach that should lower the threshold for change compared with the MDC and enhance the precision of care decisions by preventing misclassification of patients. The purpose of this Perspective is to present how IRT can address the limitations of MDCs for informing clinical practice. This Perspective demonstrates how cMDC values can be generated from item-level psychometrics derived from an IRT model using the patient-reported Activities-specific Balance Scale (ABC) commonly used in stroke rehabilitation and also illustrates how the cMDC compares to the MDC when accounting for changes in measurement error across a scale. Theoretical patient examples highlight how reliance on the MDC value can result in misclassification of patient change and how cMDC values can help prevent this from occurring. This personalized approach for interpreting change can be used by physical therapists to enhance the precision of care decisions.

Indexed as

Physical TherapistsStroke RehabilitationDisability EvaluationHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsBalanceMeasurement: AppliedStroke

Identifiers

PMID35670017
PMCPMC9361333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.