» Articles » PMID: 37652447

Predicting Whether Patients Will Achieve Minimal Clinically Important Differences Following Hip or Knee Arthroplasty

Overview
Journal Bone Joint Res
Date 2023 Aug 31
PMID 37652447
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance.

Methods: MCIDs were derived using the change difference method in a sample of 1,843 HA and 1,546 KA patients. An artificial neural network, a gradient boosting machine, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, ridge regression, elastic net, random forest, LR, and pre-surgery PROM scores were applied to predict MCID for the following PROMs: EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS).

Results: Predictive performance of the best models per outcome ranged from 0.71 for HOOS-PS to 0.84 for EQ-VAS (HA sample). ML statistically significantly outperformed LR and pre-surgery PROM scores in two out of six cases.

Conclusion: MCIDs can be predicted with reasonable performance. ML was able to outperform traditional methods, although only in a minority of cases.

Citing Articles

Leveraging machine learning for duration of surgery prediction in knee and hip arthroplasty - a development and validation study.

Langenberger B, Schrednitzki D, Halder A, Busse R, Pross C BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025; 25(1):106.

PMID: 40033378 PMC: 11877953. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-025-02927-7.


Preoperatively predicting failure to achieve the minimum clinically important difference and the substantial clinical benefit in patient-reported outcome measures for total hip arthroplasty patients using machine learning.

Park J, Zhong X, Miley E, Gray C BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025; 26(1):150.

PMID: 39953514 PMC: 11827135. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08339-y.


Satisfied with the worst health outcomes or unsatisfied with the best: explaining the divergence between good patient-reported outcomes and low satisfaction and vice versa among knee arthroplasty patients - a retrospective cohort study.

Schoner L, Steinbeck V, Busse R, Marques C J Orthop Surg Res. 2025; 20(1):88.

PMID: 39849486 PMC: 11755965. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-05507-7.


Predicting Pain Response to a Remote Musculoskeletal Care Program for Low Back Pain Management: Development of a Prediction Tool.

Areias A, Moulder R, Molinos M, Janela D, Bento V, Moreira C JMIR Med Inform. 2024; 12:e64806.

PMID: 39561359 PMC: 11615557. DOI: 10.2196/64806.


Preoperative prediction for periprosthetic bone loss and individual evaluation of bisphosphonate effect after total hip arthroplasty using artificial intelligence.

Morita A, Iida Y, Inaba Y, Tezuka T, Kobayashi N, Choe H Bone Joint Res. 2024; 13(4):184-192.

PMID: 38631686 PMC: 11023718. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.134.BJR-2023-0188.R1.


References
1.
Davis A, Perruccio A, Canizares M, Hawker G, Roos E, Maillefert J . Comparative, validity and responsiveness of the HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS to the WOMAC physical function subscale in total joint replacement for osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009; 17(7):843-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2009.01.005. View

2.
Kumar A, Tsai W, Tan T, Kung P, Chiu L, Ku M . Temporal trends in primary and revision total knee and hip replacement in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc. 2015; 78(9):538-44. PMC: 7105048. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcma.2015.06.005. View

3.
Ogutu J, Schulz-Streeck T, Piepho H . Genomic selection using regularized linear regression models: ridge regression, lasso, elastic net and their extensions. BMC Proc. 2012; 6 Suppl 2:S10. PMC: 3363152. DOI: 10.1186/1753-6561-6-S2-S10. View

4.
McGlothlin A, Lewis R . Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA. 2014; 312(13):1342-3. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.13128. View

5.
Podmore B, Hutchings A, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A, Konan S . Impact of comorbid conditions on outcomes of hip and knee replacement surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(7):e021784. PMC: 6082478. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021784. View