Minimally clinically important improvement: All non-responders are not really non-responders an illustration from total knee replacement

Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 364-367

  Davis, A M ^a,b,c,d   Perruccio, A V ^b,c   Lohmander, L S ^e,f,g  

^a UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^f LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^g UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cohort; Minimal clinically important difference; Osteoarthritis; Responder

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNEE FUNCTION; KNEE PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84859428412     PISSN: 10634584     EISSN: 15229653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.02.005     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Goldsmith C.H., Boers M., Bombardier C., Tugwell P. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. J Rheumatol 1993, 20:561-565.
2. Jaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989, 10:407-415.
3. Juniper E.F., Guyatt G.H., Willan A., Griffith L.E. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:81-87.
4. King M.T. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011, 11:171-184.
5. U.S.Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Center of Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Clinical/Medical. Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims December 2009, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.
6. Jacobson N.S., Roberts L.J., Berns S.B., McGlinchey J.B. Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application, and alternatives. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999, 67:300-307.
7. Stratford P.W., Binkley J.M., Riddle D.L., Guyatt G.H. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 1998, 78:1186-1196.
8. Judge A., Cooper C., Williams S., Dreinhoefer K., Dieppe P. Patient-reported outcomes one year after primary hip replacement in a European Collaborative Cohort. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010, 62:480-488.
9. Alzahrani K., Gandhi R., Debeer J., Petruccelli D., Mahomed N. Prevalence of clinically significant improvement following total knee replacement. J Rheumatol 2010, 38:753-759.
10. Gunther K.P. Surgical approaches for osteoarthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2001, 15:627-643.
11. Chesworth B.M., Mahomed N.N., Bourne R.B., Davis A.M. Willingness to go through surgery again validated the WOMAC clinically important difference from THR/TKR surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:907-918.
12. Escobar A., Quintana J.M., Bilbao A., Arostegui I., Lafuente I., Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil 2007, 15:273-280.
13. Davis A.M., Perruccio A.V., Ibrahim S., Hogg-Johnson S., Wong R., Streiner D.L., et al. The trajectory of recovery and the inter-relationships of symptoms, activity and participation in the first year following total hip and knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil 2011, 19:1413-1421.
14. Tubach F., Ravaud P., Baron G., Falissard B., Logeart I., Bellamy N., et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 64:29-33.
15. Tubach F., Dougados M., Falissard B., Baron G., Logeart I., Ravaud P. Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006, 55:526-530.
16. Beaton D.E., Bombardier C., Katz J.N., Wright J.G., Wells G., Boers M., et al. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology. Minimal clinically important difference. J Rheumatol 2001, 28:400-405.
17. Dieppe P., Lim K., Lohmander S. Who should have knee joint replacement surgery for osteoarthritis?. Int J Rheum Dis 2011, 14:175-180.