Minimal clinically important difference

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue 19, 2010, Pages 1739-1743

  Gatchel, Robert J ^a   Lurie, Jon D ^a   Mayer, Tom G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL; METHODOLOGY; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 36; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDITY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77956417242     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d3cfc9     Document Type: Editorial

References (28)

1. Worzer W, Theodore BR, Rodgerson M, et al. Interpreting clinical significance: a comparison of effect sizes of commonly used patient self-report pain instruments. Pract Pain Manage 2008;8:16-29.
2. Spratt KF. Patient-level minimal clinically important difference based on clinical judgment and minimally detectable measurement difference: a rationale for the SF-36 physical function scale in the SPORT intervertebral disc herniation cohort. Spine 2009;34:1722-1731
3. Guidance for industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2006.
4. Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; 2009.
5. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007;7:541-546
6. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008;33:90-94
7. Wilson HD, Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ. The association between self-reported Minimum Clinically Important Differences (MCID) and objective outcomes in a chronic disabling occupational spinal disorder population. Spine. In press.
8. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Djurasovic M, et al. Are preoperative health-related quality of life scores predictive of clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion? Spine 2009;34:725-730
9. Jaeschke R, Singer JA, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-415
10. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RI, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.
11. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analyses for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Hive and Landen; 1988.
12. Glassman SD, Polly DW, Bono CM, et al. Outcome of lumbar arthodesis in patients sixty-five years of age or older. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:783-790
13. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Dimar JR, et al. Clinical outcomes in older patients after posterolateral lumbar fusion. Spine J 2007;7:547-551
14. Djurasovic M, Bratcher KR, Glassman SD, et al. The effects of obesity on clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion. Spine 2008;33:1789-1792
15. Dimar JR, Glassman SD, Burkus JK, et al. A comparison of prospective clinical outcome measures for anterior vs posterior single-level spine fusion. Spine J 2004;4:109-111
16. Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR, et al. Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:2089-2092
17. Bae HW, Stambough J, Glassman SD, et al. Level-1 data comparing rhBMP-2/ACS combined with an osteoconductive bulking agent with iliac crest bone graft in posterolateral lumbar fusion. Spine J 2007;7:9S.
18. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcome Study Questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 2008;8:968-974
19. Vitaz TW, Raque GH, Shields CS, et al. Surgical treatment of lumbar spine stenosis in patients older than 75 years of age. J Neurosurg 1999;91:181-185
20. Glassman SD, Gornet MF, Branch C, et al. MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. Spine J 2006;6:21-26
21. Glassman SD, Branch C. Evidence based medicine: raising the bar. Spine 2007;7:513-515
22. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, et al. Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90: 1839-1847
23. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, et al. Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnosis indication. Spine J 2009;9:13-21.
24. Kuzma JW, Bohnenblust S. Basic Statistics for the Health Science. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2005.
25. Jacobson NS, Roberts LJ, Berns SB, et al. Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application and alternatives. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;7:300-307
26. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005;113:9-19.
27. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
28. Domino G, Domino ML. Psychological Testing: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2006.