ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Demystifying the Value of Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Cardiothoracic Surgery Context.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Review
- Quality of Life and Experience of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Their Caregivers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Beyond statistical significance: Embracing minimal clinically important difference for better patient care.World journal of methodology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this review is to describe the different statistical methods used in estimating the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the assessment of quality of life (QOL)-related and clinical improvement interventions, along with their implementation in cardiothoracic surgery. A thorough literature search was performed in three databases (PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar) for relevant articles from 1980 to 2022. We included articles that implemented and assessed statistical methods used to estimate the concept of MCID in cardiothoracic surgery. MCID has been successfully implemented in several medical specialties. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods are the most common approaches when evaluating the MCID. Nonetheless, we found only five studies investigating the MCID in the context of cardiothoracic surgery. Four of them used anchor-based approaches, and one used both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. MCID values were very variable depending on the methods applied, as was the clinical context of the study. The variables of interest were certain QOL measuring questionnaires, used as anchors. Multiple anchors and methods were applied, leading to different estimations of MCID. Since cardiothoracic surgery is related to important perioperative morbidity, MCID might represent an important and efficient adjunct tool to interpret clinical outcomes. The need for MCID methodology implementation is even higher in patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac surgery. More studies are needed to validate different MCID methods in this context.
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.