Kyle N Kunze1, Jacob A Bart2, Mohsin Ahmad2, Shane J Nho2, Jorge Chahla2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, U.S.A.. Electronic address: Kylekunze7@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of reporting trends and quantification methods for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) within the hip arthroscopy literature. METHODS: Cochrane, PubMed, and OVID/MEDLINE databases were queried for hip arthroscopy articles that reported the MCID. Studies were classified as (1) calculating new MCID values for their specific study-population or (2) referencing previously established MCID values. Data pertaining to patient demographics, study characteristics, outcome measures, method of MCID quantification, MCID value, anchor questions, measurement error, and study from which referenced MCID values were obtained were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 59 articles with 18,830 patients (19,867 hips) was included. A total of 19 unique outcome measures was reported. A total of 33 (n = 55.9%) studies (follow-up range 6-60 months) used previously established MCID values to assess their study population (MCID values established at a follow-up range 6-31 months). The remaining 26 studies (44.1%) performed new MCID calculations. The MCID values were inconsistent and varied widely (Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living: 5.0-15.4; Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale: 6-25; modified Harris hip score: 2.4-20.9). Among the 33 studies that used previously established MCID values, 10 different studies were cited as the reference. Among the remaining 26 studies that calculated a new MCID value, the most common method was 0.5 standard deviation method (n = 21, 80.8%). Only 3 of 26 (11.5%) studies reported a measurement of error in conjunction with their MCID values. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistencies in MCID reporting and quantification methods led to a wide range of MCID values for commonly administered outcome measures within the hip arthroscopy literature-even for the same outcome measures. The majority of studies referenced previously established MCID values with variable ranges of follow-up and applied those values to assess their specific study population at varying follow-ups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of reporting trends and quantification methods for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) within the hip arthroscopy literature. METHODS: Cochrane, PubMed, and OVID/MEDLINE databases were queried for hip arthroscopy articles that reported the MCID. Studies were classified as (1) calculating new MCID values for their specific study-population or (2) referencing previously established MCID values. Data pertaining to patient demographics, study characteristics, outcome measures, method of MCID quantification, MCID value, anchor questions, measurement error, and study from which referenced MCID values were obtained were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 59 articles with 18,830 patients (19,867 hips) was included. A total of 19 unique outcome measures was reported. A total of 33 (n = 55.9%) studies (follow-up range 6-60 months) used previously established MCID values to assess their study population (MCID values established at a follow-up range 6-31 months). The remaining 26 studies (44.1%) performed new MCID calculations. The MCID values were inconsistent and varied widely (Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living: 5.0-15.4; Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale: 6-25; modified Harris hip score: 2.4-20.9). Among the 33 studies that used previously established MCID values, 10 different studies were cited as the reference. Among the remaining 26 studies that calculated a new MCID value, the most common method was 0.5 standard deviation method (n = 21, 80.8%). Only 3 of 26 (11.5%) studies reported a measurement of error in conjunction with their MCID values. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistencies in MCID reporting and quantification methods led to a wide range of MCID values for commonly administered outcome measures within the hip arthroscopy literature-even for the same outcome measures. The majority of studies referenced previously established MCID values with variable ranges of follow-up and applied those values to assess their specific study population at varying follow-ups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review.
Authors: David R Maldonado; James D Fox; Cynthia Kyin; Andrew E Jimenez; Benjamin R Saks; Andrew J Curley; Ajay C Lall; Benjamin G Domb Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-04-20
Authors: David A Kolin; Michael A Moverman; Nicholas R Pagani; Richard N Puzzitiello; Jeremy Dubin; Mariano E Menendez; Andrew Jawa; Jacob M Kirsch Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 4.755