ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
The minimal clinically important difference changes greatly based on the patient's baseline clinical status.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of preoperative continuous supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block or anterior quadratus lumborum block versus conventional analgesia on quality of recovery after hip fracture surgery: a three-arm randomized clinical trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Structural severity versus clinical reality: Are we measuring the right endpoints?Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Reported Minimal Clinically Important Differences for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Hand and Upper-Extremity Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- The minimal clinically important difference changes greatly based on the patient's baseline clinical status.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify the influence of baseline values of a specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculation in a homogeneous series of knee osteoarthritis patients treated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections. Methods: A data set of 312 patients with knee osteoarthritis treated with intra-articular PRP injections was used. Patients were evaluated through the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 6 months after treatment. According to the baseline IKDC score, the study population was stratified into eight clusters in the first phase (<20, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79 and ≥80) and in three macro clusters in the second phase (<40, 40-69 and ≥70). MCID for the IKDC score was calculated through an anchor-based method in both phases. Results: The MCID calculation was performed for the eight clusters according to the baseline IKDC values, obtaining values from 16.2 to -3.1. Afterwards, further MCID calculation was performed after unifying patients in three major clusters based on the similarity of the previously obtained MCID values. Ninety-six patients reported a baseline IKDC score <40, 173 patients between 40 and 70, and 43 patients ≥70. MCID values for the three macro clusters were: 14.6 for patients with baseline IKDC score <40, 7.2 for patients with values between 40 and 69, while patients with values ≥70 reported an MCID value of -2.8. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the baseline patient clinical status influences the improvement needed to be perceived as clinically relevant. Patients with a worse baseline clinical status presented higher MCID levels, while MCID lost significance in patients with high baseline clinical values. These findings warrant applying general thresholds to a patients' cohort, showing the remarkable impact of the baseline clinical status. Patient stratification ensures a proper quantification of MCID values and the identification of patients benefiting from the studied treatment. Level of Evidence: Level 4.
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.