Literature DB >> 23904756

Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Alexis Wright1, Joseph Hannon, Eric J Hegedus, Alicia Emerson Kavchak.   

Abstract

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores are commonly used by clinicians when determining patient response to treatment and to guide clinical decision-making during the course of treatment. For research purposes, the MCID score is often used in sample size calculations for adequate powering of a study to minimize the false-positives (type 1 errors) and the false-negatives (type 2 errors). For clinicians and researchers alike, it is critical that the MCID score is a valid and stable measure. A low MCID value may result in overestimating the positive effects of treatment, whereas a high MCID value may incorrectly classify patients as failing to respond to treatment when in fact the treatment was beneficial. The wide range of methodologies for calculating the MCID score results in varied outcomes, which leads to difficulties with interpretation and application. This clinimetrics corner outlines key factors influencing MCID estimates and discusses limitations with the use of the MCID in both clinical and research practice settings.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MCID; Outcome measures; Psychometric properties; Responsiveness

Year:  2012        PMID: 23904756      PMCID: PMC3419574          DOI: 10.1179/2042618612Y.0000000001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Man Manip Ther        ISSN: 1066-9817


  25 in total

1.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Ross D Crosby; Ronette L Kolotkin; G Rhys Williams
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain.

Authors:  Jan J M Pool; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Jan L Hoving; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Brian R Subach; Steven D Glassman; David W Polly; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference.

Authors:  Dan Turner; Holger J Schünemann; Lauren E Griffith; Dorcas E Beaton; Anne M Griffiths; Jeffrey N Critch; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network.

Authors:  J M Binkley; P W Stratford; S A Lott; D L Riddle
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1999-04

Review 6.  The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review.

Authors:  J Greenhalgh; K Meadows
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement.

Authors:  Ying-Chih Wang; Dennis L Hart; Paul W Stratford; Jerome E Mioduski
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2011-03-03

8.  A comparison of 3 methodological approaches to defining major clinically important improvement of 4 performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Alexis A Wright; Chad E Cook; G David Baxter; John D Dockerty; J Haxby Abbott
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2011-02-18       Impact factor: 4.751

9.  Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain.

Authors:  Paul E Mintken; Paul Glynn; Joshua A Cleland
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.

Authors:  A J H M Beurskens; H C W de Vet; A J A Köke
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.961

View more
  105 in total

1.  Determining clinically important differences in health-related quality of life in older patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or surgery.

Authors:  C Quinten; C Kenis; L Decoster; P R Debruyne; I De Groof; C Focan; F Cornelis; V Verschaeve; C Bachmann; D Bron; S Luce; G Debugne; H Van den Bulck; J C Goeminne; A Baitar; K Geboers; B Petit; C Langenaeken; R Van Rijswijk; P Specenier; G Jerusalem; J P Praet; K Vandenborre; M Lycke; J Flamaing; K Milisen; J P Lobelle; H Wildiers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Temporomandibular joint effusion and its relationship with perceived disability assessed using musculoskeletal ultrasound and a patient-reported disability index.

Authors:  Katie Johnston; Lance Bird; Phillip Bright
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2015-02-05

3.  A systematic review of outcome tools used to measure lower leg conditions.

Authors:  Susan Shultz; Amanda Olszewski; Olivia Ramsey; Michelle Schmitz; Verrelle Wyatt; Chad Cook
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2013-12

4.  Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

Authors:  David A T Werner; Margreth Grotle; Sasha Gulati; Ivar M Austevoll; Greger Lønne; Øystein P Nygaard; Tore K Solberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Statistics In Brief: Minimum Clinically Important Difference-Availability of Reliable Estimates.

Authors:  Mitchell Maltenfort; Claudio Díaz-Ledezma
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Avoiding manuscript mistakes.

Authors:  Terry L Grindstaff; Susan A Saliba
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2012-10

7.  Optimizing behavioral health interventions with single-case designs: from development to dissemination.

Authors:  Jesse Dallery; Bethany R Raiff
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Validity and responsiveness of Barthel index for measuring functional recovery after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture.

Authors:  Aasis Unnanuntana; Atthakorn Jarusriwanna; Sarthak Nepal
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Can the QuickDASH PROM be Altered by First Completing the Tasks on the Instrument?

Authors:  Lauren M Shapiro; Alex H S Harris; Sara L Eppler; Robin N Kamal
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Minimal Clinically Important Differences for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Cough and Sputum in Patients with COPD.

Authors:  Patrícia Rebelo; Ana Oliveira; Cátia Paixão; Carla Valente; Lília Andrade; Alda Marques
Journal:  Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis       Date:  2020-01-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.