Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38212863›Full record

ReviewKnee surgery & related research2024

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Filippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Luise Schäfer, Francesco Simeone, Andreas Bell, Ulf Krister Hofmann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Knee surgery & related research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Individualised total knee arthroplasty demonstrates 99.4% survival at 3 to 5 years.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Medical Centre, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. migliorini.md@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7220-1221
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, University la Sapienza, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Luise SchäferDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Medical Centre, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Francesco SimeoneDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Academic Hospital of Bolzano (SABES-ASDAA), Teaching Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University, 39100, Bolzano, Italy.
Andreas BellDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Eifelklinik St.Brigida, 52152, Simmerath, Germany.
Ulf Krister HofmannDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Medical Centre, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present systematic review investigated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) of several frequent and established PROMs used to assess patients who have undergone TKA. This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement.

methodsIn September 2023, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were accessed with no time constraint All clinical studies investigating tools to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs used to evaluate patients having received TKA were accessed. Only studies which evaluated the MCID, PASS, or SCB were eligible. The PROMs of interest were the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and its related subscales activity of daily living (ADL), pain, quality of life (QoL), sports and recreational activities, and symptoms, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and related function score, and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and Short Form-36 (SF-36).

resultsData from 29,737 patients were collected. The overall risk of bias was low to moderate. The great variability of thresholds for MCID, SCB and PASS between questionnaires but also between investigated aspects was noted, whereby MCIDs for the SF-36 appear lower than for knee-specific questionnaires.

conclusionDespite its critical role from a patient's perspective, the dimension of SCB is still neglected in the literature. Moreover, thresholds for the different concepts need to be condition-specific. We encourage authors to specifically report such data in future studies and to adhere to previously reported definitions to allow future comparison. Level of evidence Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyKneeMCIDPASSPatient-reported outcome measuresPROMsSCB

Identifiers

PMID38212863
PMCPMC10782530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.