ArticlePeerJ2026
Comparing improvement ratings and minimal clinically important difference values between patients and physical therapists.
Article in PeerJ, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is most commonly defined using patient-reported assessments of meaningful change. However, MCID values may also be derived from clinician judgments. Patient and physical therapist (PT) ratings of meaningful change may differ due to differences in clinical priorities and observational focus. It remains unclear whether MCID values defined by PTs align with those defined by patients themselves. Methods: This study aim to determine the agreement in perceived improvement between patients and PTs and compare MCID values for the Simplified Chinese Lower Extremity Functional Scale (SC-LEFS) based on these improvement ratings. Patients aged 18-50 years with non-osteoarthritic lower extremity injuries completed the SC-LEFS at initial assessment and 4-weeks follow-up. After 4-weeks of physical therapy, patients were classified into "improved" and "not improved" groups by using a 7-point global rating of change (GROC) scale. Based on both the patient's and physical therapist's independent ratings, patients were separately categorized as "improved" (those reporting being improved or much improved) or "not improved" (those reporting slightly improved, no change, slightly worse, worse, or greatly worse). Separate SC-LEFS MCID values were determined that best distinguished between the two groups for the patient and PT rating. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were done to define the sensitivity and specificity for these MCID values. Results: A total of 763 patients with lower extremity injuries were included. Agreement between patients' and PTs' rating was substantial (quadratic weighted kappa = 0.8: 95% CI [0.77-0.84]). MCID values of 9.5 were found for both patient report and PT rating, with sensitivity and specificity ranging between of 0.66 and 0.72. The area under the cures (AUC) were 0.74 (95% CI [0.71-0.78]) for both patient report and PT rating. Conclusion: After 4 weeks of physical therapy, patients and PTs demonstrated agreement in their improvement ratings, and the SC-LEFS MCID thresholds for defining improvement were same for both groups.
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.