ReviewWorld journal of methodology2025
Beyond statistical significance: Embracing minimal clinically important difference for better patient care.
Review in World journal of methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness and safety of melatoninergic agonists in preventing delirium in the ICU: an updated dose‒response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical significance and minimal clinically important differences for the survival outcomes in randomized clinical trials of lung cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- The minimal clinically important difference for the patient activation measure in a culturally and linguistically diverse cohort with chronic conditions.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- The effect of intradialytic resistance exercise on physical function and dialysis adequacy in patients on maintenance hemodialysis.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Lower baseline scores best predict achievement of the minimal clinically important difference after hip arthroscopy: A machine learning analysis from the Femoroacetabular Impingement RandomiSed Controlled Trial and embedded prospective cohort.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Trial
- Article
- Ten Years of Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in a Tertiary Referral Center: Trends in Clinical Indications and Outcomes.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Article
- Neighborhood Deprivation and Voice and Reflux Symptom Burden in a Tertiary Laryngology Cohort.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Surrogate Endpoints in CLL: From Promise and Pitfalls to a Context-Specific Validation Framework.Hematology reports · 2026Review
- Sex differences in joint pain, limb function and quality of life among patients with Kashin-Beck disease in Northwest China.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Shorter or biomarker-guided antibiotic durations for common serious neonatal infections: a collection of non-inferiority meta-analyses.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- A Modified Posterior Approach to the Nerve Transfer of the Spinal Accessory Nerve to the Suprascapular Nerve.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the Oxford Elbow Score After Primary Elbow Arthroplasty Due to Acute Distal Humeral Fracture.Patient related outcome measures · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Isokinetic Muscle Strength Training on Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) represents a pivotal metric in bridging the gap between statistical significance and clinical relevance, addressing the direct impact of medical interventions from the patient's perspective. This comprehensive review analyzes the evolution, applications, and challenges of MCID across medical specialties, emphasizing its necessity in ensuring that clinical outcomes not only demonstrate statistical significance but also offer genuine clinical utility that aligns with patient expectations and needs. We discuss the evolution of MCID since its inception in the 1980s, its current applications across various medical specialties, and the methodologies used in its calculation, highlighting both anchor-based and distribution-based approaches. Furthermore, the paper delves into the challenges associated with the application of MCID, such as methodological variability and the interpretation difficulties that arise in clinical settings. Recommendations for the future include standardizing MCID calculation methods, enhancing patient involvement in setting MCID thresholds, and extending research to incorporate diverse global perspectives. These steps are critical to refining the role of MCID in patient-centered healthcare, addressing existing gaps in methodology and interpretation, and ensuring that medical interventions lead to significant, patient-perceived improvements.
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.