Literature DB >> 35644742

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit for the Pain Visual Analog Scale in a Postoperative Hand Surgery Population.

Dustin J Randall1, Yue Zhang2, Haojia Li2, James C Hubbard3, Nikolas H Kazmers4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although the pain visual analog scale (VAS-pain) is a ubiquitous patient-reported outcome instrument, it remains unclear how to interpret changes or differences in scores. Therefore, our purpose was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population.
METHODS: Adult postoperative patients treated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained orthopedic hand surgeons at a single tertiary academic medical center were identified. Inclusion required VAS-pain scores at baseline (up to 3 months before surgery) and follow-up (up to 4 months after surgery), in addition to a response to a pain-specific anchor question at follow-up. The MCID estimates were calculated with (1) the 1/2 standard deviation method; and (2) an anchor-based approach. The SCB estimates were calculated with (1) an anchor-based approach; and (2) a receiver operator curve method that maximized the sensitivity and specificity for detecting a "much improved" pain status.
RESULTS: There were 667 and 148 total patients included in the MCID and SCB analyses, respectively. The 1/2 standard deviation MCID estimate was 1.6, and the anchor-based estimate was 1.9. The anchor-based SCB estimate was 2.2. The receiver operator curve analysis yielded an SCB estimate of 2.6, with an area under the curve of 0.72, consistent with acceptable discrimination.
CONCLUSIONS: We propose MCID values in the range of 1.6 to 1.9 and SCB values in the range of 2.2 to 2.6 for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These MCID and SCB estimates may be useful for powering clinical studies and when interpreting VAS-pain score changes or differences reported in the hand surgery literature. These values are to be applied at a population level, and should not be applied to assess the improvement, or lack thereof, for individual patients.
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimal clinically important difference (MCID); patient-reported outcomes; substantial clinical benefit (SCB); visual analog pain (VAS-pain) score

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35644742      PMCID: PMC9271584          DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.03.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hand Surg Am        ISSN: 0363-5023            Impact factor:   2.342


  37 in total

1.  Outcomes Research in Orthopaedics.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 3.020

2.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.

Authors:  J N Insall; L D Dorr; R D Scott; W N Scott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference After Carpal Tunnel Release Using the PROMIS Platform.

Authors:  Nikolas H Kazmers; Man Hung; Jerry Bounsanga; Maren W Voss; Abby Howenstein; Andrew R Tyser
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 2.230

4.  Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: a diagnostic testing approach to interpretability.

Authors:  Dorcas E Beaton; Dwayne van Eerd; Peter Smith; Gabrielle van der Velde; Kimberley Cullen; Carol A Kennedy; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference for PROMIS Physical Function in Patients With Distal Radius Fractures.

Authors:  Brinkley Sandvall; Ugochi C Okoroafor; William Gerull; Jason Guattery; Ryan P Calfee
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 2.230

6.  Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments.

Authors:  Amelia A Sorensen; Daniel Howard; Wen Hui Tan; Jeffrey Ketchersid; Ryan P Calfee
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 2.230

7.  Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis.

Authors:  Steven D Glassman; Anne G Copay; Sigurd H Berven; David W Polly; Brian R Subach; Leah Y Carreon
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the PROMIS Upper-Extremity Computer Adaptive Test and QuickDASH for Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition Patients.

Authors:  Nikolas H Kazmers; Yuqing Qiu; Zhining Ou; Angela P Presson; Andrew R Tyser; Yue Zhang
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 2.230

9.  Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0 in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population.

Authors:  Nikolas H Kazmers; Yuqing Qiu; Minkyoung Yoo; Andrew R Stephens; Michelle Zeidan; Yue Zhang
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.342

10.  Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

Authors:  Kari Kanto; Tuomas Lähdeoja; Mika Paavola; Pasi Aronen; Teppo L N Järvinen; Jarkko Jokihaara; Clare L Ardern; Teemu V Karjalainen; Simo Taimela
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.