Minimal important changes and differences in elective hand surgery

Journal of Hand Surgery: European Volume

Volumn 40, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 900-912

  Rodrigues, J N ^a   Mabvuure, N T ^b   Nikkhah, D ^c   Shariff, Z ^d   Davis, T R C ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b GLASGOW ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^c Queen Victoria Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^d NORTHERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e QUEEN S MEDICAL CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

hand surgery; important difference; Minimal clinically important difference; minimal important difference; outcome

Indexed keywords

ELECTIVE SURGERY; HAND; HUMAN; NOMENCLATURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SURGERY;

ELECTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HAND; HUMANS; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84945132558     PISSN: 17531934     EISSN: 20436289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1753193414553908     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Adams A, Ketchersid J, Tan WH, Calfee RP, Howard D,. Minimal clinically important differences on the DASH, Quick-DASH and PRWE: Level 2 evidence. J Hand Surg Am. 2012, 1: 17.
2. Amirfeyz R, Pentlow A, Foote J, Leslie I,. Assessing the clinical significance of change scores following carpal tunnel surgery. Int Orthop. 2009, 33: 181-5.
3. Atroshi I, Lyrn PE, Ornstein E, Gummesson C,. The six-item CTS symptoms scale and palmar pain scale in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2011, 36: 788-94.
4. Bago J, Perez-Grueso FJ, Les E, Hernandez P, Pellise F,. Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2009, 18: 1898-904.
5. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA,. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002, 14: 109-14.
6. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, 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. 2001a, 28: 400-5.
7. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C,. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001b, 14: 128-46.
8. Beaton DE, Van Eerd D, Smith P, et al. Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: A diagnostic testing approach to interpretability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64: 487-96.
9. Beaudreuil J, Allard A, Zerkak D, et al. Unite Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale: development and validation of a tool to assess Dupuytren's disease-specific disability. Arthritis Care Res. 2011, 63: 1448-55.
10. Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1998, 36: 491-502.
11. Bindra RR, Dias JJ, Heras-Palou C, Amadio PC, Chung KC, Burke FD,. Assessing outcome after hand surgery: the current state. J Hand Surg Br. 2003, 28: 289-94.
12. Carswell A, McColl MA, Baptiste S, Law M, Polatajko H, Pollock N,. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: a research and clinical literature review. Can J Occup Ther. 2004, 71: 210-22.
13. Chatterjee JS, Price PE,. Comparative responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am. 2009, 34: 273-80.
14. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC,. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007, 7: 541-6.
15. Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, et al. Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery. Quality Life Res. 2008, 17: 1257-67.
16. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM,. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006, 4: 54.
17. Deyo RA, Centor RM,. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chron Dis. 1986, 39: 897-906.
18. Fan J, Upadhye S, Worster A,. Understanding receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Can J Emerg Med Care. 2006, 8: 19-20.
19. Franchignoni F, Vercelli S, Giordano A, Sartorio F, Bravini E, Ferriero G,. Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014, 44: 30-9.
20. Garrison C, Cook C,. Clinimetrics corner: the Global Rating of Change Score (GRoC) poorly correlates with functional measures and is not temporally stable. J Man Manip Ther. 2012, 20: 178-81.
21. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C,. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskel Dis. 2003, 4: 11.
22. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE,. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002, 55: 900-8.
23. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C,. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996, 29: 602-8.
24. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH,. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989, 10: 407-15.
25. Katz JN, Gelberman RH, Wright EA, Lew RA, Liang MH,. Responsiveness of self-reported and objective measures of disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1994, 32: 1127-33.
26. Kim JK, Jeon SH,. Minimal clinically important differences in the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Eur. 2013, 38: 75-9.
27. Kim JK, Park ES,. Comparative responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences for idiopathic ulnar impaction syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013, 471: 1406-11.
28. Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, et al. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993, 75: 1585-92.
29. London DA, Stepan JG, Calfee RP,. Determining the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire minimal clinically important difference by means of three methods. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014, 133: 616-25.
30. Malay S, Chung KC,. The minimal clinically important difference after simple decompression for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. J Hand Surg Am. 2013, 38: 652-9.
31. Mintken PE, Glynn P, Cleland JA,. Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2009, 18: 920-6.
32. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010, 10: 22.
33. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG,. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6: e1000097.
34. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G,. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997, 50: 869-79.
35. Ozer K, Malay S, Toker S, Chung KC,. Minimal clinically important difference of carpal tunnel release in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013, 131: 1279-85.
36. Ozyurekoglu T, McCabe SJ, Goldsmith LJ, LaJoie AS,. The minimal clinically important difference of the carpal tunnel syndrome symptom severity scale. J Hand Surg Am. 2006, 31: 733-8.
37. Polson K, Reid D, McNair PJ, Larmer P,. Responsiveness, minimal importance difference and minimal detectable change scores of the shortened disability arm shoulder hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Man Ther. 2010, 15: 404-7.
38. Poltawski L, Watson T,. Measuring clinically important change with the Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation. Hand Ther. 2011, 16: 52-7.
39. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J,. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61: 102-9.
40. Ring D,. Benchmarking changes in symptom intensity and magnitude of disability. J Hand Surg Am. 2013, 38: 650-1.
41. Schmitt J, Di Fabio RP,. The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005, 86: 2270-6.
42. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP,. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004, 57: 1008-18.
43. Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH,. Commentary-goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res. 2005, 40: 593-7.
44. Sears ED, Chung KC,. Validity and responsiveness of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test. J Hand Surg Am. 2010, 35: 30-7.
45. Shauver MJ, Chung KC,. The minimal clinically important difference of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 2009, 34: 509-14.
46. Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, Ketchersid J, Calfee RP,. Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am. 2013, 38: 641-9.
47. Spies-Dorgelo MN, Terwee CB, Stalman WA, van der Windt DA,. Reproducibility and responsiveness of the symptom severity scale and the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch arthritis impact measurement scales (Dutch-AIMS2-HFF) in primary care patients with wrist or hand problems. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006, 4: 87.
48. Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Porucznik CA, Powell AP,. Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2009, 18: 927-32.
49. van der Giesen FJ, Nelissen RG, Arendzen JH, de Jong Z, Wolterbeek R, Vliet Vlieland TP,. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire-Dutch language version in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008, 89: 1121-6.
50. Waljee JF, Chung KC,. Objective functional outcomes and patient satisfaction after silicone metacarpophalangeal arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis. J Hand Surg Am. 2012, 37: 47-54.
51. Witthaut J, Bushmakin AG, Gerber RA, Cappelleri JC, Le Graverand-Gastineau MP,. Determining clinically important changes in range of motion in patients with Dupuytren's Contracture: secondary analysis of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled CORD I study. Clin Drug Investig. 2011, 31: 791-8.