SynthesisBMC rheumatology2025
Minimal important differences of measurement instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping review.
Synthesis in BMC rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- RAPID3 disease activity trajectory among patients with rheumatoid arthritis new to specialty pharmacy medications.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany outcomes relevant to rheumatoid arthritis are measured as continuous variables. Judging whether the results of those measurements are clinically significant requires determining the minimal important difference (MID) estimate. Therefore, valid MID estimate(s) are essential for the purposes of clinical decision-making and developing clinical recommendations. Our objective is to present the MID estimates for instruments used to measure outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis studies.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review. We included original research reports on MID of instruments used to measure outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, using distribution- or anchor-based methods. We excluded conference abstracts. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) databases on January 6, 2025 and scanned the reference lists of included studies and of identified relevant systematic reviews. Reviewers screened the titles and abstracts and full-texts, then abstracted data in duplicate and independently. They resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. We summarized the data narratively and in tabular formats.
resultsWe identified 35 eligible studies reporting on a total of 144 MID estimates for 72 instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis. The most common constructs measured were physical function (26%), disease activity (18%), health status (17%) and fatigue (14%). The majority of measurement instruments were generic (60%). The most common instrument with MID estimates was the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (7%). The majority of MID estimates were calculated using anchor-based methods (72%). We did not critically appraise the included studies.
conclusionsWe identified the MID estimates for a substantive number of measurement instruments used in rheumatoid arthritis. There was considerable variability in the findings for the same instrument within and across studies.
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.