SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Selecting the optimal MIC for five patient-reported outcome measures in patients with upper extremity injuries, using a systematic search and step-by-step decision tree.
Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo illustrate how optimal MIC values can be selected for PROMs using a systematic step-by-step approach.
methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, until June 2024 to identify all studies that estimated the MIC for the following PROMs in patients with upper extremity injuries: DASH, Q-DASH, MHQ, PRWE and PROMIS-UE. Credibility of the MIC values was examined using the MIC credibility instrument. The optimal MIC value was selected using a published systematic step-by-step approach, taking the credibility of the MIC studies, the correlation of the PROM change score with the anchor, the consistency of MIC values, and contextual factors (e.g. type of intervention) into account.
resultsEleven studies were included. Eight studies scored high on the core credibility items, but all studies scored low on the additional criteria, regarding the appropriateness of the time interval and the correlation between the anchor and (change in) PROM scores. The most credible estimates per PROM were not consistent and there were not enough estimates per PROM to study contextual factors. The following optimal MIC values (among ranges of MIC values found) were selected: DASH 9.4 (6.7–13.0), Q-DASH 7.4 (3.5–11.7), PRWE 11.5 (9.2–56.0), and PROMIS-UE v1.2 4.7 (4.6–4.8). No studies were found on the MIC of the MHQ in Upper Extremity Injury (UEI) patients.
conclusionThis study serves as an example of how optimal MIC values can be carefully selected for a given PROM if multiple MIC values are reported in the literature.
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.