ArticleThe American journal of sports medicine2023
The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Changes Greatly Based on the Different Calculation Methods.
Article 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. Cited by 89 papers, 12 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
89 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 145 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Inconsistencies in clinically significant outcome metrics for knee cartilage repair: a systematic review.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical significance and minimal clinically important differences for the survival outcomes in randomized clinical trials of lung cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Psychometric properties of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery composites in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: A systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Pooled it
- Minimal important differences of measurement instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping review.BMC rheumatology · 2025Pooled it
- Outcomes after multiligament knee injury worsen over time: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Pooled it
- Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) following surgical knee ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Pooled it
- Biological augmentation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone marrow aspirate concentrate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.International orthopaedics · 2025Pooled it
- Oral health-related quality of life in patients with periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical relevance of patient-reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma: Pooled Data from 7 Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Trials.The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2024Pooled it
- Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with and without exercise to reduce fear of falling in older people living in the community.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- The minimal clinically important difference for the patient activation measure in a culturally and linguistically diverse cohort with chronic conditions.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Effect of class IV LASER therapy along with Low-dye kinesio-taping technique or plantar fascia stretching on pain, pain pressure threshold, and disability in individuals with plantar fasciitis: Double-blinded randomized clinical trial.Lasers in medical science · 2026Trial
- Is training speed an accurate predictor of who attains a minimal clinically important difference in the six-minute walk test in people with chronic stroke?Topics in stroke rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Application of saphenous nerve infrapatellar branch protection technique in total knee arthroplasty.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Trial
- Virtual reality-based training to augment recovery of hand dexterity after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Estimation of Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and Tinnitus Functional Index.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Trial
- Dual intra-articular injections of corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid versus single corticosteroid injection for ankle osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Trial
29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) expresses both the extent of the improvement and the value that patients place on it. MCID use is becoming increasingly widespread to understand the clinical efficacy of a given treatment, define guidelines for clinical practice, and properly interpret trial results. However, there is still large heterogeneity in the different calculation methods. PURPOSE: To calculate and compare the MCID threshold values of a PROM by applying various methods and analyzing their effect on the study results interpretation. STUDY
designCohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.
methodsThe data set used to investigate the different MCID calculation approaches was based on a database of 312 patients affected by knee osteoarthritis and treated with intra-articular platelet-rich plasma. MCID values were calculated on the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 6 months using 2 approaches: 9 methodologies referred to an anchor-based approach and 8 methodologies to a distribution-based approach. The obtained threshold values were applied to the same series of patients to understand the effect of using different MCID methods in evaluating patient response to treatment.
resultsThe different methods employed led to MCID values ranging from 1.8 to 25.9 points. The anchor-based methods ranged from 6.3 to 25.9, while the distribution-based ones were from 1.8 to 13.8 points, showing a 4.1× variation of the MCID values within the anchor-based methods and a 7.6× variation within the distribution-based methods. The percentage of patients who reached the MCID for the IKDC subjective score changed based on the specific calculation method used. Among the anchor-based methods, this value varied from 24.0% to 66.0%, while among the distribution-based methods, the percentage of patients reaching the MCID varied from 44.6% to 75.9%.
conclusionThis study proved that different MCID calculation methods lead to highly heterogeneous values, which significantly affect the percentage of patients achieving the MCID in a given population. The wide-ranging thresholds obtained with the different methodologies make it difficult to evaluate the real effectiveness of a given treatment questioning the usefulness of MCID, as currently available, in the clinical research.
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.