Commentary: The proliferation of minimum clinically important differences

Spine Journal

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1129-1131

  Copay, Anne G ^a  

^a The Spinal Research Foundation   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; DISABILITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; LUMBAR SPINE; METHODOLOGY; MINIMUM CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PATIENT CARE; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDARTHROSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAMPLE SIZE; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 36;

BACK PAIN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSEUDARTHROSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPINAL FUSION;

EID: 84872350945     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: 18781632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.022     Document Type: Note

References (15)

1. R. Jaeschke, J. Singer, and G.H. Guyatt Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference Control Clin Trials 10 1989 407 415 (Pubitemid 20025670)
2. A.G. Copay, S.D. Glassman, and B.R. Subach The minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients. A choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, MOS Short Form 36, and pain scales Spine J 8 2008 968 974
3. S.L. Parker, O. Adogwa, and S.K. Mendenhall Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis Spine J 12 2012 1122 1128
4. S.L. Parker, O. Adogwa, and A.R. Paul Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis J Neurosurg Spine 14 2011 598 604
5. S.L. Parker, S.K. Mendenhall, and D. Shau Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease J Neurosurg Spine 16 2012 61 67
6. S.L. Parker, S.K. Mendenhall, and D.N. Shau Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance J Neurosurg Spine 16 2012 471 478
7. R.J. Gatchel, J.D. Lurie, and T.G. Mayer Minimal clinically important difference Spine 35 2010 1739 1743
8. R.J. Gatchel, and T.G. Mayer Testing minimal clinically important difference: additional comments and scientific reality testing Spine J 10 2010 330 332
9. B.R. Theodore Methodological problems associated with the present conceptualization of the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit Spine J 10 2010 507 509
10. H.D. Wilson, T.G. Mayer, and R.J. Gatchel The lack of association between changes in functional outcomes and work retention in a chronic disabling occupational spinal disorder population: implications for the minimum clinical important difference Spine 36 2011 474 480
11. R.J. Gatchel, and T.G. Mayer Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? Spine J 10 2010 321 327
12. A.G. Copay, M.M. Martin, and B.R. Subach Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements Spine J 10 2010 291 296
13. S.D. Glassman, A.G. Copay, and S. Berven Defining substantial clinical benefit in lumbar spine fusion J Bone Joint Surg Am 90 2008 1839 1847
14. E.J. Carragee, and I. Cheng Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion Spine J 10 2011 313 320
15. C.E. Schwartz, and J.A. Finkelstein Understanding inconsistencies in patient-reported outcomes after spine treatment: response shift phenomena Spine J 9 2009 1039 1045