Ahmad R Sedaghat1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) represents a threshold value of change in PROM score deemed to have an implication in clinical management. The MCID is frequently used to interpret the significance of results from clinical studies that use PROMs. However, an understanding of the many caveats of the MCID, as well as its strengths and limitations, is necessary. The objective of this article is to provide a review of the calculation, interpretation, and caveats of MCID. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PubMed Central. REVIEW METHODS: Literature search-including primary studies, review articles, and consensus statements-pertinent to the objectives of this review using PubMed. CONCLUSIONS: The MCID of a PROM may vary depending on the patients and clinical context in which the PROM is given. The primary approaches for calculating MCID are distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Each methodology has strengths and limitations, and the ideal determination of a PROM MCID includes synthesis of results from both approaches. The MCID of a PROM is also not perfect in detecting patients experiencing a clinically important improvement, and this is reflected in its accuracy (eg, sensitivity and specificity). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Interpretation or application of MCID requires consideration of all caveats underlying the MCID, including the patients in whom it was derived, the limitations of the methodologies used to calculate it, and its accuracy for identifying patients who have experienced clinically significant improvement.
OBJECTIVE: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) represents a threshold value of change in PROM score deemed to have an implication in clinical management. The MCID is frequently used to interpret the significance of results from clinical studies that use PROMs. However, an understanding of the many caveats of the MCID, as well as its strengths and limitations, is necessary. The objective of this article is to provide a review of the calculation, interpretation, and caveats of MCID. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PubMed Central. REVIEW METHODS: Literature search-including primary studies, review articles, and consensus statements-pertinent to the objectives of this review using PubMed. CONCLUSIONS: The MCID of a PROM may vary depending on the patients and clinical context in which the PROM is given. The primary approaches for calculating MCID are distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Each methodology has strengths and limitations, and the ideal determination of a PROM MCID includes synthesis of results from both approaches. The MCID of a PROM is also not perfect in detecting patients experiencing a clinically important improvement, and this is reflected in its accuracy (eg, sensitivity and specificity). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Interpretation or application of MCID requires consideration of all caveats underlying the MCID, including the patients in whom it was derived, the limitations of the methodologies used to calculate it, and its accuracy for identifying patients who have experienced clinically significant improvement.
Entities:
Keywords:
MCID; minimal clinically significant difference; outcomes; quality of life
Authors: Philipp Poppenborg; Ulf Liljenqvist; Georg Gosheger; Albert Schulze Boevingloh; Lukas Lampe; Sebastian Schmeil; Tobias L Schulte; Tobias Lange Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Rehab Talat; Katie M Phillips; David S Caradonna; Stacey T Gray; Ahmad R Sedaghat Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Lucy J van Hensbergen; Inge J Veldhuizen; Erica H Lee; Saskia Houterman; Tjinta Brinkhuizen; René R W J van der Hulst; Maarten M Hoogbergen Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: Danny Mou; Christer Mjaset; Claire M Sokas; Azan Virji; Barbara Bokhour; Marilyn Heng; Rachel C Sisodia; Andrea L Pusic; Meredith B Rosenthal Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Roger Chou; Rafael Zambelli Pinto; Rongwei Fu; Robert A Lowe; Nicholas Henschke; James H McAuley; Tracy Dana Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-10-21
Authors: Julia Schuchard; Adam C Carle; Michael D Kappelman; Carole A Tucker; Christopher B Forrest Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 2.993
Authors: Nathaniel P Mercer; Alan P Samsonov; John F Dankert; Arianna L Gianakos; Tobias Stornebrink; Rick J Delmonte; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; John G Kennedy Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-02-08