Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41541305›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Common Arthroscopic Sports Surgeries of the Knee: A Systematic Review.

Dusan Kovacevic, Gurjovan Sahi, Darius L Lameire, Aazad Abbas, Daniel B Whelan, John Theodoropoulos, Tim Dwyer, Jaskarndip Chahal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dusan KovacevicTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2196-2518
Gurjovan SahiTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5950-2385
Darius L LameireDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1051-3144
Aazad AbbasDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Daniel B WhelanDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
John TheodoropoulosDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3185-7800
Tim DwyerDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jaskarndip ChahalDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used to capture patients' perspectives when evaluating outcomes after arthroscopic knee surgery. To aid in the interpretation of PROM scores at the individual level, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) are used. These metrics provide patient-centered thresholds for what constitutes a meaningful improvement and satisfactory state postoperatively. Purpose: To summarize available literature on MCID and PASS values for all PROMs across common primary arthroscopic knee sports surgeries. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from inception through January 13, 2025, to identify studies that calculated MCID or PASS values of PROMs after primary knee arthroscopic surgeries of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), meniscus, or cartilage. Study characteristics, MCID and PASS thresholds, and threshold calculation methods were extracted. MCID and PASS thresholds were aggregated by PROM, surgical treatment, and calculation method and then summarized using a range. Results: In total, 59 studies met the inclusion criteria; 52 studies calculated MCID thresholds, with 15 studies using anchor-based methods and 39 studies using distribution-based methods. A total of 21 studies calculated PASS thresholds; 35 studies calculated thresholds for ACL procedures, 15 studies for meniscus procedures, and 8 studies for cartilage procedures. ACL reconstruction was the most reported procedure (n = 32 studies). Thresholds were calculated for 18 different PROMs, with the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC) being the most frequently reported instrument (n = 34 studies). The range of MCID thresholds for the IKDC after ACL reconstruction was 7.1 to 16.2 using anchor-based methods and 7.6 to 10.5 using distribution-based methods, while PASS thresholds ranged from 66.7 to 80.5. Conclusion: The heterogeneity observed in reported MCID and PASS values suggests that these metrics should be viewed as context-specific. While most studies in this review used distribution-based calculations to derive MCID values, anchor-based calculations should be prioritized in future studies as they better reflect the patient's perception of improvement. Overall, this study will allow investigators to use appropriate clinically relevant thresholds for designing randomized controlled trials, comparing the proportion of patients achieving a meaningful improvement and satisfactory state across different treatment arms, and establishing patient expectations for recovery.

Indexed as

arthroscopykneeMCIDPASSPROMs

Identifiers

PMID41541305
PMCPMC12799980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.