SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Clinical relevance of patient-reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotics improves reproducibility of component positioning while producing modest but measurable clinical benefits in total hip arthroplasty: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections for hip osteoarthritis: a level I systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
- Differences in health outcomes of orthopedic rehabilitation after hip or knee replacement: a prospective pilot study benchmarking 23 rehabilitation facilities using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Outcomes at 1 Year After Total Hip Arthroplasty Combined With Low Femoral Neck Osteotomy vs Subtrochanteric Osteotomy in 73 Patients With Crowe Type IV Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Retrospective Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Weighted predictive modelling estimation of patient acceptable symptom state for forgotten joint score, Oxford hip score, and EuroQol health index 3 and 12 months after total hip arthroplasty in a United Kingdom cohort.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- CORR Insights®: Contralateral THAs More Than 1 Year Apart: Do PROMs and Healthcare Utilization Differ After Each Procedure?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Quantifying Impairments in the Subacute Phase of Whiplash Associated Disorders-A Cross-Sectional Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- No Effect of Cigarette Smoking in the Outcome of Arthroscopic Management for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn orthopaedic research, it is crucial to determine changes that are statistically significant and clinically meaningful. One approach to accomplish this is by calculating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), the Clinically Important Differences (CID), the Minimum Detectable Change (MDC), the Minimal Important Change (MIC), and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) values. These tools assist medical professionals in comprehending the patient's viewpoint, enabling them to establish treatment objectives that align with patients' desires and expectations. The present systematic review investigated the MCID, MIC, CID, MDC, and PASS of the most used PROMs to assess patients who have undergone THA.
methodsThis systematic review followed the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed were accessed in March 2024 without time constraints or additional filters. All the clinical investigations which evaluated data tools (MCID, MIC, CID, MDC, and PASS) to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs in THA were accessed. Articles in Spanish, Italian, German, and English were eligible. Studies with levels of evidence I to III were eligible.
resultsData from 100,824 patients were collected. All relevant demographic data were analysed and summarised. In addition, the MCID, MIC, CID, MDC and PASS of the COMI, HOOS, SF-36, OHS, Oxford-12, PROMIS-PF, SF-12, and WOMAC scores for THA were determined.
conclusionCurrent evidence recommends to collect MCIDs based on anchors routinely. These values should be used as complementary tools to determine the clinical effectiveness of a treatment instead of solely relying on statistically significant improvements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39316103What 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.