Editorial: The Minimum Clinically Important Difference—The Least We Can Do

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Volumn 475, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 929-932

  Leopold, Seth S ^a   Porcher, Raphaël ^b  

^a CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH   (United States)

^b HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANCHOR BASED APPROACH; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DISTRIBUTION BASED APPROACH; EDITORIAL; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; MINIMUM CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TOXICITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; ORTHOPEDICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; ORTHOPEDICS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 85010736933     PISSN: 0009921X     EISSN: 15281132     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-017-5253-5     Document Type: Editorial

References (16)

1. Carragee EJ. The rise and fall of the “minimum clinically important difference.” Spine J. 2010;10:283–284.
2. Carragee EJ, Cheng I. Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2010;10:313–320.
3. Colquhoun D. The problem with p-values. Aeon. 11 October 2016. Available at https://aeon.co/essays/it-s-time-for-science-to-abandon-the-term-statistically-significant, accessed on December 29, 2016.
4. Copay AG, Martin MM, Subach BR, Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Schuler TC, Berven S. Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: Inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements. Spine J. 2010;10:291–296.
5. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407.
6. Davis AM, Perruccio AV, Lohmander LS. Minimally clinically important improvement: All non-responders are not really non-responders: An illustration from total knee replacement. Osteoarth Cartilage. 2012;20:364–367.
7. Dorey F. Statistics in brief. Interpretation and use of p values. All p values are not equal. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3259–3261.
8. Gilmer BB, Comstock BA, Jette JL, Warme WJ, Jackins SE, Matsen FA III. The prognosis for improvement in comfort and function after the ream-and-run arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis. An analysis of 176 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:e102.
9. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY. Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1839–1847.
10. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Cont Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.
11. Katz NP, Paillard FC, Ekman E. Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopaedic conditions. J Ortho Surg Res. 2015;10:24.
12. Maltenfort M, Diaz-Ledezma C. Statistics in brief: Minimum clinically important difference—Availability of reliable estimates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. [Published online ahead of print January 3, 2017]. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-5204-6.
13. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582–592.
14. Rai SK, Yazdany J, Fortin PR, Aviña-Zubieta JA. Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important differences in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17:143.
15. The B. Significance testing—Are we ready yet to abandon its use? Current Med Res Opin. 2011;27:2087–2090.
16. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA’s Statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70:129–133.