Minimum Clinically Important Difference

Spine

Volumn 42, Issue 14, 2017, Pages 1096-1105

  Chung, Andrew S ^a   Copay, Anne G ^b   Olmscheid, Neil ^a   Campbell, David ^a   Walker, J Brock ^a   Chutkan, Norman ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b SPIRITT Research   (United States)

Author keywords

Disability; functional assessment; minimum clinically important difference (MCID); pain scale(s); patient reported outcomes

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SPINE MALFORMATION; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BACK PAIN; NECK PAIN; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPINAL DISEASES;

BACK PAIN; HUMANS; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; NECK PAIN; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPINAL DISEASES;

EID: 84996878294     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001990     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Beaton DE. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 2000;25:3192-9.
2. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007;7:541-6.
3. Porter ME, Larsson S, Lee TH. Standardizing patient outcomes measurement. N Engl J Med 2016;374:504-6.
4. Lagerbäck T, Elkan P, Mö ller H, et al. An observational study on the outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation in adolescents compared with adults based on the Swedish Spine Register. Spine J 2015;15:1241-7.
5. Tomkins-Lane CC, Lafave LMZ, Parnell JA, et al. The spinal stenosis pedometer and nutrition lifestyle intervention (SSPANLI): Development and pilot. Spine J 2015;15:577-86.
6. Kim CH, Kim K-T, Chung CK, et al. Minimally invasive cervical foraminotomy and diskectomy for laterally located soft disk herniation. Eur Spine J 2015;24:3005-12.
7. Weiner BK, Vilendecic M, Ledic D, et al. Endplate changes following discectomy: Natural history and associations between imaging and clinical data. Eur Spine J 2015;24:2449-57.
8. Salfinger H, Salomonowitz G, Friedrich KM, et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance therapy in lumbar disc herniation with lumbar radicular syndrome: Effects of the intervention on pain intensity, health-related quality of life, disease-related disability, consumption of pain medication, duration of sick leave and MRI analysis. Eur Spine J 2015;24:1296-308.
9. Kimura A, Endo T, Inoue H, et al. Impact of axial neck pain on quality of life after laminoplasty. Spine 2015;40:E1292-8.
10. Kim H-J, Park J-W, Kang K-T, et al. Determination of the optimal cutoff values for pain sensitivity questionnaire scores and the Oswestry disability index for favorable surgical outcomes in subjects with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2015;40:E1110-6.
11. Nolet PS, Cô té P, Kristman VL, et al. Is neck pain associated with worse health-related quality of life 6 months later A populationbased cohort study. Spine J 2015;15:675-84.
12. Aragonés M, Hevia E, Barrios C. Polyurethane on titanium unconstrained disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical disc disease: A review of level I-II randomized clinical trials including clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 2015;24:2735-45.
13. Zhou F, Zhang Y, Sun Y, et al. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in neurological function and quality of life after surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients: A prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J 2015;24:2918-23.
14. Assaker R, Ritter-Lang K, Vardon D, et al. Maverick total disc replacement in a real-world patient population: A prospective, multicentre, observational study. Eur Spine J 2015;24:2047-55.
15. Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, et al. A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 Patients. Spine 2015; 40:1322-8.
16. Tetreault L, Nouri A, Kopjar B, et al. The Minimum clinically important difference of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Spine 2015;40:1653-9.
17. Nolet PS, Kristman VL, Cô té P, et al. Is low back pain associated with worse health-related quality of life 6 months later Eur Spine J 2015;24:458-66.
18. Ulrich NH, Kleinstü ck F, Woernle CM, et al. Clinical outcome in lumbar decompression surgery for spinal canal stenosis in the aged population: A Prospective Swiss Multicenter Cohort Study. Spine 2015;40:415-22.
19. Rundell SD, Gellhorn AC, Comstock BAJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of early and later physical therapist services for older adults with back pain. Spine J 2015;15:1744-55.
20. Deyo RA, Bryan M, Comstock BA, et al. Trajectories of symptoms and function in older adults with low back disorders. Spine 2015;40:1352-62.
21. Payares K, Lugo LH, Restrepo A. Validation of the Roland Morris questionnaire in Colombia to evaluate disability in low back pain. Spine 2015;40:1108-14.
22. Montgomery AS, Cunningham JE, Robertson PA. The influence of no fault compensation on functional outcomes after lumbar spine fusion. Spine 2015;40:1140-7.
23. Scheer JK, Mundis GM, Klineberg E, et al. Postoperative recovery after adult spinal deformity surgery: Comparative analysis of age in 149 patients during 2-year follow-up. Spine 2015;40: 1505-15.
24. Lu S, Kong C, Hai Y, et al. Retrospective study on effectiveness of Activ L total disc replacement: Clinical and radiographical results of 1-to 3-year follow-up. Spine 2015;40:E411-7.
25. Patel VV, Whang PG, Haley TR, et al. Superion interspinous process spacer for intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis: Two-year results from a randomized controlled FDA-IDE pivotal trial. Spine 2015; 40:275-82.
26. Schneider M, Haas M, Glick R, et al. Comparison of spinal manipulation methods and usual medical care for acute and subacute low back pain: A randomized clinical trial. Spine 2015;40:209-17.
27. van Hooff ML, Spruit M, Fairbank JCT, et al. The Oswestry disability index (Version 2.1a): Validation of a Dutch language version. Spine 2015;40:E83-90.
28. Colman MW, Karim SM, Lozano-Calderon SA, et al. Quality of life after en bloc resection of tumors in the mobile spine. Spine J 2015;15:1728-37.
29. Sigmundsson FG, Jö nsson B, Strö mqvist B. Outcome of decompression with and without fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in relation to preoperative pain pattern: A register study of 1, 624 patients. Spine J 2015;15:638-46.
30. Wong AYL, Parent EC, Dhillon SS, Prasad N, et al. Do participants with low back pain who respond to spinal manipulative therapy differ biomechanically from nonresponders, untreated controls or asymptomatic controls Spine 2015;40:1329-37.
31. Gum JL, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. SRS22R appearance domain correlates most with patient satisfaction after adult deformity surgery to the sacrum at 5-year follow-up. Spine 2015;40:1297-302.
32. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
33. 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.
34. Gatchel RJ, Lurie JD, Mayer TG. Minimal clinically important difference. Spine 2010;35:1739-43.
35. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Choi Y, et al. Validation of a consensusbased minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold using an objective functional external anchor. Spine J 2013;13:889-93.
36. 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 Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, Pain Scales. Spine J 2008;8:968-74.
37. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: Review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28:406-12.
38. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:861-73.
39. Bellamy N, Carr A, Dougados M, et al. Towards a definition of" difference" in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2001;28:427-30.
40. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, et al. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006;7:1.
41. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: Understanding clinical versus statistical significance: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:471-8.
42. Ma C, Wu S, Xiao L, et al. Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2011;20:475-81.
43. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, et al. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14:598-604.
44. Mehling WE, Gopisetty V, Bartmess E, et al. The prognosis of acute low back pain in primary care in the United States: A 2-year prospective cohort study. Spine 2012;37:678-84.
45. Cleland JA, Whitman JM, Houser JL, et al. Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 2012;12:921-31.
46. Monticone M, Baiardi P, Vanti C, et al. Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in Italian subjects with sub-acute and chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2012;21:122-9.
47. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: Understanding clinical versus statistical significance: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:471-8.
48. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau D, et al. Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;16:61-7.
49. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Mendenhall SK, et al. Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Spine J 2012;12:1122-8.
50. Carreon LY, Bratcher KR, Canan CE, et al. Differentiating minimum clinically important difference for primary and revision lumbar fusion surgeries: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:102-6.
51. Genevay S, Marty M, Courvoisier DS, et al. Validity of the French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain patients: A prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J 2014;23:2097-104.
52. Vieira AC, Moniz S, Fernandes R, et al. Responsiveness and interpretability of the Portuguese version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 2014;39:E346-52.
53. Jorritsma W, Dijkstra PU, de Vries GE, et al. Detecting relevant changes and responsiveness of Neck Pain and Disability Scale and Neck Disability Index. Eur Spine J 2012;21: 2550-7.
54. Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, et al. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:154-60.
55. Monticone M, Ferrante S, Maggioni S, et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the core outcome measures index (COMI) for the neck. Eur Spine J 2014;23:863-72.
56. Ailliet L, Rubinstein SM, de Vet HCW, et al. Reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the neck disability index-Dutch version in primary care. Eur Spine J 2015;24:88-93.
57. Chien A, Lai D-M, Cheng C-H, et al. Responsiveness of the Chinese Versions of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy evaluation questionnaire and neck disability index in postoperative patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 2015;40:1315-21.
58. Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Vernon H, et al. Responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Neck Disability Index and the Neck Pain Disability Scale in Italian subjects with chronic neck pain. Eur Spine J 2015;24:2821-7.
59. Pereira M, Cruz EB, Domingues L, et al. Responsiveness and interpretability of the Portuguese version of the neck disability index in patients with chronic neck pain undergoing physiotherapy. Spine 2015;40:E1180-1186.
60. Misterska E, Glowacki M, Adamczyk K, et al. A longitudinal study of Alexithymia in relation to physical activity in adolescent females with scoliosis subjected to Cheneau brace treatment: Preliminary report. Spine 2014;39:E1026-34.
61. Crawford CH, Glassman SD, Bridwell KH, et al. The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine 2015;40:377-81.
62. Ostelo RWJG, de Vet HCW. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2005;19:593-607.
63. 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;33:90-4.
64. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, et al. The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 appearance, activity, pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2010;35:2079-83.
65. Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, WattersWCIII, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: Assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;21:7-13.
66. Vaccaro AR, Fisher CG, Prasad SK, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for spine surgery. Spine 2016;41:E165-173.