Literature DB >> 31159641

Understanding the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Ahmad R Sedaghat1.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MCID; minimal clinically significant difference; outcomes; quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31159641     DOI: 10.1177/0194599819852604

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0194-5998            Impact factor:   3.497


  27 in total

1.  Complications in TLIF spondylodesis-do they influence the outcome for patients? A prospective two-center study.

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

2.  Seasonal variations in chronic rhinosinusitis symptom burden may be explained by changes in mood.

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

3.  Cancer worry after facial nonmelanoma skin cancer resection and reconstruction: A 1-year prospective study.

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

4.  Minimal clinically important difference of mouth opening in oral submucous fibrosis patients: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Amanjot Kaur; Neeti Rustagi; Aparna Ganesan; Nihadha Pm; Pravin Kumar; Kirti Chaudhry
Journal:  J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2022-06-30

5.  Impetus of US hospital leaders to invest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a qualitative study.

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

Review 6.  Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain.

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

7.  Interpreting Patient-Reported Outcome Scores: Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease as a Use Case.

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

8.  What Are the Minimally Important Changes of Four Commonly Used Patient-reported Outcome Measures for 36 Hand and Wrist Condition-Treatment Combinations?

Authors:  Lisa Hoogendam; Jaimy Emerentiana Koopman; Yara Eline van Kooij; Reinier Feitz; Caroline Anna Hundepool; Chao Zhou; Harm Pieter Slijper; Ruud Willem Selles; Robbert Maarten Wouters
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 4.755

9.  Improved Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction of In-Office Needle Arthroscopy for the Treatment of Posterior Ankle Impingement.

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

10.  The minimal important change for the seven-item disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH 7) questionnaire - Assessing shoulder function in patients with subacromial pain.

Authors:  Jenny M Nordqvist; Theresa M Holmgren; Lars E Adolfsson; Birgitta E Öberg; Kajsa M Johansson
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-03-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.