ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
The trajectory of patient-reported outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in isolated and polytraumatic pelvis and acetabular fractures.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatient-reported minimal clinically important differences (MCID) provide a standard to compare clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to calculate the MCID of PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), Anxiety (AX), and Depression (DEP) scores in patients with pelvis and/or acetabular fractures.
methodsAll patients with operatively treated pelvic and/or acetabular fractures were identified. Patients were categorized as either only pelvis and/or acetabular fractures (PA) or polytrauma (PT). PROMIS PF, PI, AX, and DEP scores were evaluated at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month intervals. Distribution-based MCID and anchor-based MCID were calculated for the overall cohort, PA, and PT groups.
resultsThe overall distribution-based MCIDs were PF (5.19), PI (3.97), AX (4.33), and DEP (4.41). The overall anchor-based MCIDs were PF (7.18), PI (8.03), AX (5.85), DEP (5.00). The percentage of patients achieving MCID for AX was 39.8-54% at 3 months and 32.7-56% at 12 months. The percentage of patients achieving MCID for DEP was 35.7-39.3% at 3 months and 32.1-35.7% at 12 months. The PT group had worse PROMIS PF scores than the PA group at all time points [post-operative, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month scores, (28.3 (6.3) vs. 26.8 (6.8) P = 0.016), (38.1 (9.2) vs. 35.0 (8.7) P = 0.037), (42.8 (8.2) vs. 39 (9.6) P = 0.015), (46.2 (9.7) vs. 41.2 (9.7) P = 0.011)].
conclusionAn overall MCID for PROMIS PF was 5.19-7.18, PROMIS PI 3.97-8.03, PROMIS AX of 4.33-5.85, and PROMIS DEP of 4.41-5.00. The PT group had worse PROMIS PF at all time points. The percentage of patients achieving MCID for AX and DEP plateaued at 3 months post-operatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.