The Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the Oswestry Disability Index Substantially Varies Based on Calculation Method: Implications to Value-Based Care.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2025-05-15 Epub Date: 2024-06-18 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005074
Matthew J Solomito, Cameron Kia, Heeren Makanji
{"title":"The Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the Oswestry Disability Index Substantially Varies Based on Calculation Method: Implications to Value-Based Care.","authors":"Matthew J Solomito, Cameron Kia, Heeren Makanji","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Evaluate differences in the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold value based on various acceptable statistical methods and how these differences may influence the interpretation of surgical benefit following elective 1- and 2-level lumbar fusion.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>The MCID is a statistically determined threshold value to evaluate if a patient has received benefit from a medical procedure. In the era of value-based medicine, the MCID has become increasingly important. However, there is substantial ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of this value, given that it can be influenced by both demographic and methodological factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 371 patients who underwent 1- or 2-level elective lumbar fusions between June 2021 and June 2023 were included in this study. All patients completed both their preoperative and 6-month postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as 2 anchor questions concerning satisfaction with their surgical procedure. The MCID values were calculated using 16 accepted statistical methods, and the resulting MCID values were applied to the cohort to determine how many patients reached MCID by 6 months postfusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results demonstrated significant variability in the MCID value. The average MCID value for all 16 methods was 10.5±7.0 points in the in the range (0.8 to 25). Distribution methods provided lower threshold MCID values but had greater variability while the Anchor methods resulted in higher threshold values but had lower variability. Depending on the method used 30% to 83% of the cohort reached MCID by 6 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The statistical method used to calculate the MCID resulted in significantly different threshold values and greatly affected the number of patients meeting MCID. The results demonstrates the complexity surrounding the interpretation of MCID values and calls into question the utility of a single statistically determined value to assess surgical success.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":"707-712"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005074","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective study.

Objective: Evaluate differences in the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold value based on various acceptable statistical methods and how these differences may influence the interpretation of surgical benefit following elective 1- and 2-level lumbar fusion.

Summary of background data: The MCID is a statistically determined threshold value to evaluate if a patient has received benefit from a medical procedure. In the era of value-based medicine, the MCID has become increasingly important. However, there is substantial ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of this value, given that it can be influenced by both demographic and methodological factors.

Methods: A total of 371 patients who underwent 1- or 2-level elective lumbar fusions between June 2021 and June 2023 were included in this study. All patients completed both their preoperative and 6-month postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as 2 anchor questions concerning satisfaction with their surgical procedure. The MCID values were calculated using 16 accepted statistical methods, and the resulting MCID values were applied to the cohort to determine how many patients reached MCID by 6 months postfusion.

Results: Results demonstrated significant variability in the MCID value. The average MCID value for all 16 methods was 10.5±7.0 points in the in the range (0.8 to 25). Distribution methods provided lower threshold MCID values but had greater variability while the Anchor methods resulted in higher threshold values but had lower variability. Depending on the method used 30% to 83% of the cohort reached MCID by 6 months.

Conclusion: The statistical method used to calculate the MCID resulted in significantly different threshold values and greatly affected the number of patients meeting MCID. The results demonstrates the complexity surrounding the interpretation of MCID values and calls into question the utility of a single statistically determined value to assess surgical success.

根据计算方法的不同,Oswestry 残疾指数的最小临床重要差异存在很大差异:对基于价值的医疗服务的影响。
研究设计回顾性研究:根据各种可接受的统计方法,评估最小临床重要差异(MCID)阈值的差异,以及这些差异如何影响对选择性一、二级腰椎融合术后手术获益的解释:MCID 是通过统计学方法确定的阈值,用于评估患者是否从医疗程序中获益。在以价值为基础的医学时代,MCID 变得越来越重要。方法:本研究纳入了在 2021 年 6 月至 2023 年 6 月期间接受一或两级选择性腰椎融合术的 371 例患者。所有患者均填写了术前和术后 6 个月的 Oswestry 失能指数 (ODI),以及两个有关手术过程满意度的锚定问题。研究人员使用 16 种公认的统计方法计算了 MCID 值,并将计算出的 MCID 值应用于队列,以确定有多少患者在融合术后 6 个月达到 MCID:结果:结果显示,MCID 值存在很大差异。所有 16 种方法的平均 MCID 值为 10.5±7.0 点,范围在 0.8 至 25 之间。分布式方法提供的阈值 MCID 值较低,但变异性较大,而 Anchor 方法提供的阈值较高,但变异性较低。根据所用方法的不同,30% 到 83% 的组群在 6 个月前达到 MCID:结论:计算 MCID 所使用的统计方法会导致明显不同的阈值,并在很大程度上影响达到 MCID 的患者人数。该结果表明了解释 MCID 值的复杂性,并对用单一统计值评估手术成功率的实用性提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信