María J Díaz-Arribas1,2, Mónica Fernández-Serrano2,3,4, Ana Royuela2,5, Francisco M Kovacs2,6,7, Tomás Gallego-Izquierdo3,4, Mabel Ramos-Sánchez1,2, Rosa Llorca-Palomera1,2, Pedro Pardo-Hervás1,2, Oscar S Martín-Pariente2,4. 1. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Faculty of Medicine, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. 2. Spanish Back Pain Research Network. 3. Nurse and Physical Therapy Department. University of Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain. 4. Physical Therapy Research Group in Primary Care. 5. Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Puerta de Hierro University Hospital, Instituto de Investigación Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain. 6. Kovacs Back Pain Unit. Moncloa University Hospital Avda. Valladolid, Madrid, Spain. 7. Kovacs Research Institute, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summaries of Short Form SF-12 (SF-12), in patients with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Quality of life is one of the core domains recommended to be assessed in patients with LBP. SF-12 is the most widely used instrument for this purpose, but its MCID was unknown. METHODS: A total of 458 patients with subacute and chronic LBP were consecutively recruited across 21 practices. LBP, referred pain, disability, PCS, and MCS were assessed upon recruitment and 12 months later. Self-reported health status change between baseline and 12 month-assessment, was used as the external criterion. The MCID for SF-12 was estimated following four anchor-based methods; minimal detectable change (MDC); average change (AC); change difference (CD); and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), for which the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The effect on MCID values of pain duration and baseline scores was assessed. RESULTS: Values for PCS were: MDC: 0.56, AC: 2.71, CD: 3.29, and ROC: 1.14. Values for MCS were: MDC: 3.77, AC: 3.54, CD: 1.13, and ROC: 4.23. AUC values were <0.7; MCID values were smaller among chronic patients and those with better baseline quality of life. CONCLUSION: Different methods for MCID calculation lead to different results. In patients with subacute and chronic LBP, improvements >3.77 in MCS and >3.29 in PCS, can be considered clinically relevant. MCID is smaller in patients with longer pain duration and better baseline quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summaries of Short Form SF-12 (SF-12), in patients with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Quality of life is one of the core domains recommended to be assessed in patients with LBP. SF-12 is the most widely used instrument for this purpose, but its MCID was unknown. METHODS: A total of 458 patients with subacute and chronic LBP were consecutively recruited across 21 practices. LBP, referred pain, disability, PCS, and MCS were assessed upon recruitment and 12 months later. Self-reported health status change between baseline and 12 month-assessment, was used as the external criterion. The MCID for SF-12 was estimated following four anchor-based methods; minimal detectable change (MDC); average change (AC); change difference (CD); and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), for which the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The effect on MCID values of pain duration and baseline scores was assessed. RESULTS: Values for PCS were: MDC: 0.56, AC: 2.71, CD: 3.29, and ROC: 1.14. Values for MCS were: MDC: 3.77, AC: 3.54, CD: 1.13, and ROC: 4.23. AUC values were <0.7; MCID values were smaller among chronic patients and those with better baseline quality of life. CONCLUSION: Different methods for MCID calculation lead to different results. In patients with subacute and chronic LBP, improvements >3.77 in MCS and >3.29 in PCS, can be considered clinically relevant. MCID is smaller in patients with longer pain duration and better baseline quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Authors: Matthias Hoben; Jennifer A Knopp-Sihota; Maryam Nesari; Stephanie A Chamberlain; Janet E Squires; Peter G Norton; Greta G Cummings; Bonnie J Stevens; Carole A Estabrooks Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-11-21
Authors: Joseph Dias; Stephen Brealey; Liz Cook; Caroline Fairhurst; Sebastian Hinde; Paul Leighton; Surabhi Choudhary; Matthew Costa; Catherine Hewitt; Stephen Hodgson; Laura Jefferson; Kanagaratnam Jeyapalan; Ada Keding; Matthew Northgraves; Jared Palmer; Amar Rangan; Gerry Richardson; Nicholas Taub; Garry Tew; John Thompson; David Torgerson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Benjamin B Wang; Khushbu F Patel; Audrey E Wolfe; Shelley Wiechman; Kara McMullen; Nicole S Gibran; Karen Kowalske; Walter J Meyer; Lewis E Kazis; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider Journal: Burns Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: O R Stockly; A E Wolfe; L F Espinoza; L C Simko; K Kowalske; G J Carrougher; N Gibran; A M Bamer; W Meyer; M Rosenberg; L Rosenberg; L E Kazis; C M Ryan; J C Schneider Journal: Burns Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 2.609
Authors: Ziev B Moses; Sharmeen Razvi; Seok Yoon Oh; Andrew Platt; Kevin C Keegan; Fadi Hamati; Christopher Witiw; Brian T David; Ricardo B V Fontes; Harel Deutsch; John E O'Toole; Richard G Fessler Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2021-06