Filippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Luise Schäfer, Francesco Simeone, Andreas Bell, Ulf Krister Hofmann
{"title":"全膝关节置换术患者的最小临床意义差异 (MCID)、实质性临床获益 (SCB) 和患者可接受症状状态 (PASS)：系统综述。","authors":"Filippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Luise Schäfer, Francesco Simeone, Andreas Bell, Ulf Krister Hofmann","doi":"10.1186/s43019-024-00210-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The present systematic review investigated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) of several frequent and established PROMs used to assess patients who have undergone TKA. This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In September 2023, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were accessed with no time constraint All clinical studies investigating tools to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs used to evaluate patients having received TKA were accessed. Only studies which evaluated the MCID, PASS, or SCB were eligible. The PROMs of interest were the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and its related subscales activity of daily living (ADL), pain, quality of life (QoL), sports and recreational activities, and symptoms, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and related function score, and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and Short Form-36 (SF-36).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 29,737 patients were collected. The overall risk of bias was low to moderate. The great variability of thresholds for MCID, SCB and PASS between questionnaires but also between investigated aspects was noted, whereby MCIDs for the SF-36 appear lower than for knee-specific questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite its critical role from a patient's perspective, the dimension of SCB is still neglected in the literature. Moreover, thresholds for the different concepts need to be condition-specific. We encourage authors to specifically report such data in future studies and to adhere to previously reported definitions to allow future comparison. Level of evidence Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":36317,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery and Related Research","volume":"36 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10782530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Filippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Luise Schäfer, Francesco Simeone, Andreas Bell, Ulf Krister Hofmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43019-024-00210-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The present systematic review investigated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) of several frequent and established PROMs used to assess patients who have undergone TKA. This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In September 2023, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were accessed with no time constraint All clinical studies investigating tools to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs used to evaluate patients having received TKA were accessed. Only studies which evaluated the MCID, PASS, or SCB were eligible. The PROMs of interest were the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and its related subscales activity of daily living (ADL), pain, quality of life (QoL), sports and recreational activities, and symptoms, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and related function score, and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and Short Form-36 (SF-36).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 29,737 patients were collected. The overall risk of bias was low to moderate. The great variability of thresholds for MCID, SCB and PASS between questionnaires but also between investigated aspects was noted, whereby MCIDs for the SF-36 appear lower than for knee-specific questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite its critical role from a patient's perspective, the dimension of SCB is still neglected in the literature. Moreover, thresholds for the different concepts need to be condition-specific. We encourage authors to specifically report such data in future studies and to adhere to previously reported definitions to allow future comparison. Level of evidence Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee Surgery and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10782530/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee Surgery and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-024-00210-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-024-00210-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.
Background: The present systematic review investigated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) of several frequent and established PROMs used to assess patients who have undergone TKA. This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement.
Methods: In September 2023, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were accessed with no time constraint All clinical studies investigating tools to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs used to evaluate patients having received TKA were accessed. Only studies which evaluated the MCID, PASS, or SCB were eligible. The PROMs of interest were the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and its related subscales activity of daily living (ADL), pain, quality of life (QoL), sports and recreational activities, and symptoms, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and related function score, and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and Short Form-36 (SF-36).
Results: Data from 29,737 patients were collected. The overall risk of bias was low to moderate. The great variability of thresholds for MCID, SCB and PASS between questionnaires but also between investigated aspects was noted, whereby MCIDs for the SF-36 appear lower than for knee-specific questionnaires.
Conclusion: Despite its critical role from a patient's perspective, the dimension of SCB is still neglected in the literature. Moreover, thresholds for the different concepts need to be condition-specific. We encourage authors to specifically report such data in future studies and to adhere to previously reported definitions to allow future comparison. Level of evidence Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
