ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Quantitative Analysis of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in the Brief Pain Inventory After Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of pain research, 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.
- Cortical excitability and analgesic effects of multisite transcranial direct current stimulation targeting the motor cortex and cerebellum in fibromyalgia.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- The Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the Brief Pain Inventory During the Perioperative Period of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of pain research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Research on the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) following Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is limited. This study addresses this gap by determining the MCID of the BPI for patients undergoing primary TKA. Patients and Methods: This study was designed to quantitatively determine the MCID of the BPI for patients undergoing primary TKA. A prospective cohort of 288 patients was evaluated, with the BPI administered both preoperatively and at a one-year follow-up. The MCID was calculated using two primary approaches: the anchor-based method, considered the gold standard, and the distribution-based method. Additionally, this study explored various calculation approaches within the distribution-based framework, benchmarking them against the anchor-based method. The distribution-based methods included calculations based on Standard Deviation (SD), Effect Size (ES), Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM). All statistical calculations were performed using established formulas. Results: The anchor-based method determined the MCID for BPI pain severity to be 3.9 points, the pain interference dimension to be 5.8 points, and the total score to be 9.7 points. Comparisons with the gold standard highlighted the 0.65ES, 1.96SEM, and 0.5SRM methods as the most suitable approaches for distribution-based MCID estimation. Conclusion: The MCID for BPI in TKA patients was established using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. When anchor-based determination is impractical, the distribution-based methods-0.65ES, 1.96SEM, and 0.5SRM-are recommended for MCID calculation.
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.