Deconstructing the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID).

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedic Research and Reviews Pub Date : 2022-02-17 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2147/ORR.S349268
Janine Molino, Joseph Harrington, Jennifer Racine-Avila, Roy Aaron
{"title":"Deconstructing the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID).","authors":"Janine Molino,&nbsp;Joseph Harrington,&nbsp;Jennifer Racine-Avila,&nbsp;Roy Aaron","doi":"10.2147/ORR.S349268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a way of dichotomizing data for assessment of success or failure based on clinically meaningful changes. The magnitude of the MCID is often misunderstood to be a singular quantity applicable across studies. However, substantial differences have been reported among MCIDs for the same outcome measures usually based upon differences extrinsic to the calculation. This study explores the effects of variabilities intrinsic to the calculation of the MCID.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The MCIDs for two knee replacement patient-reported outcomes measures of pain and function were calculated at 1 year postoperative with an integrative anchor and distribution-based method using external anchor questions and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. The effects upon the magnitude and precision of the MCIDs of varying the anchor questions, the thresholds for success/failure, and the sample sizes were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Wide variabilities were observed in both the magnitudes and precision of the MCIDs. The threshold for success had the largest effect on magnitude of pain scores, while the sample size had the largest effect on precision. For function scores, the sample size had the largest effect on magnitude, and the anchor question had the largest effect on precision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comparisons among MCIDs are difficult to interpret if elements of the calculations are different and influence the results. While factors extrinsic to the calculations, e.g., study population, trial design, methods of calculation, etc., are known to produce differences in the magnitude of MCIDs, this study shows that more subtle and less obvious factors intrinsic to the calculations have profound effects on both the magnitude and precision of MCIDs. Comparisons among MCIDs should be made with caution and call for greater transparency in reporting intrinsic methods. It is probably advisable for individual studies to calculate their own MCIDs and not rely on published values.</p>","PeriodicalId":19608,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Research and Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"35-42"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/39/9c/orr-14-35.PMC8860454.pdf","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S349268","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Purpose: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a way of dichotomizing data for assessment of success or failure based on clinically meaningful changes. The magnitude of the MCID is often misunderstood to be a singular quantity applicable across studies. However, substantial differences have been reported among MCIDs for the same outcome measures usually based upon differences extrinsic to the calculation. This study explores the effects of variabilities intrinsic to the calculation of the MCID.

Methods: The MCIDs for two knee replacement patient-reported outcomes measures of pain and function were calculated at 1 year postoperative with an integrative anchor and distribution-based method using external anchor questions and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. The effects upon the magnitude and precision of the MCIDs of varying the anchor questions, the thresholds for success/failure, and the sample sizes were examined.

Results: Wide variabilities were observed in both the magnitudes and precision of the MCIDs. The threshold for success had the largest effect on magnitude of pain scores, while the sample size had the largest effect on precision. For function scores, the sample size had the largest effect on magnitude, and the anchor question had the largest effect on precision.

Conclusion: Comparisons among MCIDs are difficult to interpret if elements of the calculations are different and influence the results. While factors extrinsic to the calculations, e.g., study population, trial design, methods of calculation, etc., are known to produce differences in the magnitude of MCIDs, this study shows that more subtle and less obvious factors intrinsic to the calculations have profound effects on both the magnitude and precision of MCIDs. Comparisons among MCIDs should be made with caution and call for greater transparency in reporting intrinsic methods. It is probably advisable for individual studies to calculate their own MCIDs and not rely on published values.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

解构最小临床重要差异(MCID)。
目的:最小临床重要差异(MCID)是一种基于临床有意义变化评估成功或失败的数据二分法。MCID的大小经常被误解为适用于所有研究的单一数量。然而,在相同的结果测量中,mcid之间存在实质性差异,通常是基于计算的外部差异。本研究探讨了计算MCID所固有的变异性的影响。方法:两例膝关节置换术患者报告的疼痛和功能指标的MCIDs在术后1年采用基于整体锚点和分布的方法计算,采用外部锚点问题和接受者操作者特征(ROC)曲线。研究了不同锚定问题、成功/失败阈值和样本量对MCIDs的大小和精度的影响。结果:在MCIDs的大小和精度上观察到广泛的变化。成功的阈值对疼痛评分的大小影响最大,而样本量对精确度影响最大。对于功能评分,样本量对量级的影响最大,锚定问题对精度的影响最大。结论:如果计算要素不同,MCIDs之间的比较难以解释,影响结果。虽然已知计算的外在因素,如研究群体、试验设计、计算方法等,会产生MCIDs大小的差异,但本研究表明,计算的内在因素更微妙和不太明显,对MCIDs的大小和精度都有深远的影响。在比较中等发展指标时应谨慎,并呼吁在报告内在方法方面提高透明度。单独的研究计算自己的mcid,而不是依赖已发表的值,可能是可取的。
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
Orthopedic Research and Reviews
Orthopedic Research and Reviews Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Research and Reviews is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the patho-physiology of the musculoskeletal system, trauma, surgery and other corrective interventions to restore mobility and function. Advances in new technologies, materials, techniques and pharmacological agents will be particularly welcome. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Patho-physiology and bioengineering, Technologies and materials science, Surgical techniques, including robotics, Trauma management and care, Treatment including pharmacological and non-pharmacological, Rehabilitation and Multidisciplinarian care approaches, Patient quality of life, satisfaction and preference, Health economic evaluations. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, basic science and technology, clinical studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, case reports and extended reports.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信