The Anchor Design of Anchor-based Method to Determine the Minimal Clinically Important Difference: a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Health Qual Life Outcomes

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Public Health

Date 2023 Jul 15

PMID 37454099

Authors

Yu Zhang

Xiaoyu Xi

Yuankai Huang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Positive results for clinical outcomes should be not only statistically significant, but also clinically significant. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to define the minimum threshold of clinical significance. The anchor-based method is a classical method for ascertaining MCID. This study aimed to summarise the design of the anchors of the anchor-based method by reviewing the existing research and providing references and suggestions.

Method: This study was mainly based on literature research. We performed a systematic search using Web of Science, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted from eligible articles using a predefined data collection form. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and the involvement of a third reviewer.

Result: Three hundred and forty articles were retained for final analysis. For the design of anchors, Subjective anchors (99.12%) were the most common type of anchor used, mainly the Patient's rating of change or patient satisfaction (66.47%) and related scale health status evaluation items or scores (39.41%). Almost half of the studies (48.53%) did not assess the correlation test between the anchor and the research indicator or scale. The cut-off values and grouping were usually based on the choice of the anchor types. In addition, due to the large number of included studies, this study selected the most calculated SF-36 (28 articles) for an in-depth analysis. The results showed that the overall design of the anchor and the cut-off value were the same as above. The statistical methods used were mostly traditional (mean change, ROC). The MCID thresholds of these studies had a wide range (SF-36 PCS: 2-17.4, SF-36 MCS: 1.46-10.28), and different anchors or statistical methods lead to different results.

Conclusion: It is of great importance to select several types of anchors and to use more reliable statistical methods to calculate the MCID. It is suggested that the order of selection of anchors should be: objective anchors > anchors with established MCID in subjective anchors (specific scale > generic scale) > ranked anchors in subjective anchors. The selection of internal anchors should be avoided, and anchors should be evaluated by a correlation test.

Citing Articles

Establishing metrics of clinically meaningful change for treating knee osteoarthritis with a combination of autologous orthobiologics.

Centeno C, Ghattas J, Dodson E, Steinmetz N, Murphy M, Berger D Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):7244.

PMID: 40021765 PMC: 11871318. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-91972-3.

The minimal clinically important difference changes greatly based on the patient's baseline clinical status.

Franceschini M, Boffa A, Di Martino A, Pignotti E, Andriolo L, Zaffagnini S J Exp Orthop. 2025; 12(1):e70137.

PMID: 39931152 PMC: 11808252. DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.70137.

Perceived effects of health status on sexual activity in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: a 5-year follow-up study.

Rohde G, Berg K, Pripp A, Haugeberg G Rheumatol Int. 2024; 45(1):9.

PMID: 39733199 PMC: 11682003. DOI: 10.1007/s00296-024-05758-3.

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.

Minimal clinically important difference for acupuncture for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: secondary analysis from a multicentre randomised controlled trial in China.

Xiao X, Cao W, Zou Z, Chen S, Yang Q, Qin D BMJ Open. 2024; 14(10):e085041.

PMID: 39477260 PMC: 11529762. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085041.

References

Zhou F, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Zhang F, Pan S, Liu Z . Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in neurological function and quality of life after surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients: a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(12):2918-23. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4208-3. View

Antonescu I, Scott S, Tran T, Mayo N, Feldman L . Measuring postoperative recovery: what are clinically meaningful differences?. Surgery. 2014; 156(2):319-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.03.005. View

Carton P, Filan D . Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Athletes Undergoing Arthroscopic Correction of Sports-Related Femoroacetabular Impingement: The Percentage of Possible Improvement. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020; 8(1):2325967119894747. PMC: 6978826. DOI: 10.1177/2325967119894747. View

Coteur G, Feagan B, Keininger D, Kosinski M . Evaluation of the meaningfulness of health-related quality of life improvements as assessed by the SF-36 and the EQ-5D VAS in patients with active Crohn's disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 29(9):1032-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.03966.x. View

Hara T, Kogure E, Iijima S, Fukawa Y, Kubo A, Kakuda W . Minimal clinically important difference in postoperative recovery among patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2021; 30(3):2197-2205. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06632-9. View

Pinter D, Janszky J, Kovacs N . Minimal Clinically Important Differences for Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Mov Disord. 2020; 35(7):1218-1223. DOI: 10.1002/mds.28057. View

Trostrup J, Andersen H, Kam C, Magnusson S, Beyer N . Assessment of Mobility in Older People Hospitalized for Medical Illness Using the de Morton Mobility Index and Cumulated Ambulation Score-Validity and Minimal Clinical Important Difference. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2017; 42(3):153-160. PMC: 6687413. DOI: 10.1519/JPT.0000000000000170. View

Auffinger B, Lall R, Dahdaleh N, Wong A, Lam S, Koski T . Measuring surgical outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: assessment of minimum clinically important difference. PLoS One. 2013; 8(6):e67408. PMC: 3691175. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067408. View

Guyatt G, Osoba D, Wu A, Wyrwich K, Norman G . Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002; 77(4):371-83. DOI: 10.4065/77.4.371. View

10.

Tager T, Giannitsis E, Greve K, Frohlich H, Muller-Hennessen M, Vafaie M . Long-term biological variation of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T using minimal important differences and reference change values in stable outpatients with cardiovascular disease. Clin Biochem. 2019; 67:7-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019.03.003. View

11.

Henderson E, Morgan G, Amin J, Gaunt D, Ben-Shlomo Y . The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for a falls intervention in Parkinson's: A delphi study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2018; 61:106-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2018.11.008. View

12.

Fu V, Weatherall M, McNaughton H . Estimating the minimal clinically important difference for the Physical Component Summary of the Short Form 36 for patients with stroke. J Int Med Res. 2021; 49(12):3000605211067902. PMC: 8724999. DOI: 10.1177/03000605211067902. View

13.

Griffiths P, Terluin B, Trigg A, Schuller W, Bjorner J . A confirmatory factor analysis approach was found to accurately estimate the reliability of transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 141:36-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.029. View

14.

Park K, Shin J, Lee J, Lee Y, Kim M, Lee J . Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit in Pain, Functional, and Quality of Life Scales in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 42(8):E474-E481. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001950. View

15.

Terwee C, Peipert J, Chapman R, Lai J, Terluin B, Cella D . Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures. Qual Life Res. 2021; 30(10):2729-2754. PMC: 8481206. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-02925-y. View

16.

Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G . Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the.... Arthritis Rheum. 2001; 45(4):384-91. DOI: 10.1002/1529-0131(200108)45:4<384::AID-ART352>3.0.CO;2-0. View

17.

Kato S, Oshima Y, Matsubayashi Y, Taniguchi Y, Tanaka S, Takeshita K . Minimum clinically important difference in outcome scores among patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty. Eur Spine J. 2019; 28(5):1234-1241. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-05945-y. View

18.

Revicki D, Hays R, Cella D, Sloan J . Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(2):102-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012. View

19.

Yuksel S, Ayhan S, Nabiyev V, Domingo-Sabat M, Vila-Casademunt A, Obeid I . Minimum clinically important difference of the health-related quality of life scales in adult spinal deformity calculated by latent class analysis: is it appropriate to use the same values for surgical and nonsurgical patients?. Spine J. 2018; 19(1):71-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.005. View

20.

Erez G, Selman L, Murtagh F . Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with conservatively managed stage 5 chronic kidney disease: limitations of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36: SF-36. Qual Life Res. 2016; 25(11):2799-2809. PMC: 5065617. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-016-1313-7. View