ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024
Calculation of the minimal clinically important difference in operated patients with adult spine deformity: advantages of the ROC method and significance of prevalence in threshold selection.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) is crucial to evaluate management outcomes, but different thresholds have been obtained in different works. Part of this variability is due to measurement error and influence of the database, both essential for calculating the MCID. The aim of this study was to introduce the association of the ROC method in the anchor-based MCID calculation for ODI, SRS-22r, and SF-36, to objectively set the threshold for the anchor-based MCID in an adult spine deformity (ASD) population.
methodsMulticentric study based on a prospective database of consecutively operated ASD patients. An anchor question was used to assess patients' quality of life after surgery. Different approaches were used to calculate the MCID and then compared: SEM (Standard Error of Measurement), MDC (Minimal Detectable Change), and anchor-based MCID with ROC method.
results516 patients were included. Those who responded with 6 and 7 to the anchor question were considered improved. The MCID ranges obtained with the ROC method exhibited the lowest variability. Prediction error rates ranged from 31% (SRS-22r) to 41% (SF-36 MCS). The MCID ranges spanned between 12 and 15 for ODI, 0.6 and 0.73 for SRS-22r, 6.62 and 7.41 for SF-36 PCS, and between 2.69 and 5.63 for SF-36 MCS.
conclusionThe ROC method proposes an MCID range with error rate, and can objectively determine the threshold for distinguishing improved and non-improved patients. As the MCID correlates with the utilized database and error of measurement, each study should compute its own MCID for each PROM to allow comparison among different publications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38842608What 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.