ArticlePain2025
Performance of baseline quartile-stratified minimal clinically important difference estimates was superior to individual minimal clinically important difference estimates when compared with a gold standard comparator of important change.
Article in Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: Analytic approaches for prognostic studies of persistent pain following knee arthroplasty.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor regarding "Minimal important change of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis - Using three different anchor-based methods".Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractA variety of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) estimates are available to distinguish subgroups with differing outcomes. When a true gold standard is absent, latent class growth curve analysis (LCGC) has been proposed as a suitable alternative for important change. Our purpose was to evaluate the performance of individual and baseline quartile-stratified MCIDs. The current study included data from 346 persons with baseline and 12-month postoperative outcome data from KASTPain, a no-effect randomized clinical trial conducted on persons with knee arthroplasty and pain catastrophizing. Subgroup trajectories from LCGC were used as a gold standard comparator. Minimal clinically important difference-specific trajectories of recovery were calculated for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, Disability and EuroQol-5 Dimension Visual Analogue Scale of self-reported health. The latent Kappa (K l ) chance-corrected agreement between MCIDs and LCGCs were estimated to indicate which MCID method was best at detecting important change. For all 3 outcomes, the average latent class probabilities ranged from 0.90 to 0.99, justifying the use of LCGCs as a gold standard. The K l for LCGC and individual MCIDs ranged from 0.21 (95% CI = 0.13, 0.28) to 0.52 (95% CI = 0.41, 0.66). Baseline quartile-stratified K l for WOMAC Pain and Disability were 0.85 (95% CI = 0.78, 0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.68, 0.83), respectively. Classification errors in individual MCID estimates most likely result from ceiling effects. Minimal clinically important differences calculated for each baseline quartile are superior to individually calculated MCIDs and should be used when latent class methods are not available. Use of individual MCIDs likely contribute substantial error and are discouraged for clinical application.
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.