» Articles » PMID: 35210873

Deconstructing the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Overview
Journal Orthop Res Rev
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2022 Feb 25
PMID 35210873
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Clinical Validation and Outcome Measures From Bend Ease: A Novel, Sensor-Based Digital Measurement Tool for Assessing At-Home Morning Stiffness and Spinal Range of Motion in Axial Spondyloarthritis.

Crowley A, Siegel L, Grainger R, Webster D, He T, Yang L Rheumatol Ther. 2025; .

PMID: 39976661 DOI: 10.1007/s40744-025-00746-w.


Improvement in Central Sensitization Following Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Severe Preoperative Pain and Affects Postoperative Quality of Life: A Retrospective Study.

Koh H, Kim Y, Park D, Kang M, Choi Y Orthop Surg. 2025; 17(3):876-887.

PMID: 39865510 PMC: 11872357. DOI: 10.1111/os.14342.


Clinical cut-offs for hip- and knee arthroplasty outcome - minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

Paulsen A, Djuv A, Dalen I Qual Life Res. 2025; .

PMID: 39831936 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-025-03896-0.


Responsiveness and clinically important differences of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index in surgical and non-surgical treatment groups with different follow-up periods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Farzad M, Jafari H, MacDermid J, Ataeian M Shoulder Elbow. 2024; :17585732241268631.

PMID: 39574545 PMC: 11577551. DOI: 10.1177/17585732241268631.


The Definition of Failure in Hip Arthroscopy May Include Factors Outside of Reoperation: A Systematic Review.

Bernard C, Bowles E, Trotter M, Aldag L, Henkelman E, Long R Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024; 6(5):100962.

PMID: 39534025 PMC: 11551386. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100962.


References
1.
Katz N, Paillard F, Ekman E . Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015; 10:24. PMC: 4327973. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-014-0144-x. View

2.
Youden W . Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950; 3(1):32-5. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::aid-cncr2820030106>3.0.co;2-3. View

3.
Wylde V, Penfold C, Rose A, Blom A . Variability in long-term pain and function trajectories after total knee replacement: A cohort study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019; 105(7):1345-1350. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.08.014. View

4.
Lyman S, Lee Y, McLawhorn A, Islam W, Maclean C . What Are the Minimal and Substantial Improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR Versions After Total Joint Replacement?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018; 476(12):2432-2441. PMC: 6259893. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000456. View

5.
Monticone M, Ferrante S, Salvaderi S, Motta L, Cerri C . Responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in subjects undergoing rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 92(10):864-70. DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31829f19d8. View