Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: A systematic review and case study to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 5, 2017, Pages

  Devji, Tahira ^a   Guyatt, Gordon H ^a   Lytvyn, Lyubov ^b   Brignardello Petersen, Romina ^a,c   Foroutan, Farid ^a,d   Sadeghirad, Behnam ^a,e   Buchbinder, Rachelle ^f,g   Poolman, Rudolf W ^h   Harris, Ian A ^i,j   Carrasco Labra, Alonso ^a,c   Siemieniuk, Reed A C ^a,k   Vandvik, Per O ^l  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

^d TORONTO GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e KERMAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^f MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^g CABRINI INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^h ONZE LIEVE VROUWE GASTHUIS   (Netherlands)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^j INGHAM INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED MEDICAL RESEARCH   (Australia)

^k UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^l INNLANDET HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; EMBASE; HUMAN; KNEE DISEASE; KNEE FUNCTION; KNEE INJURY AND OSTEOARTHRITIS OUTCOME SCORE; KNEE PAIN; MEDLINE; MINIMAL IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCINFO; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX; ANALGESIA; KNEE; KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS; META ANALYSIS; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PAIN MANAGEMENT; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85018861267     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015587     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:26-35.
2. Altman R, Brandt K, Hochberg M, et al. Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis: recommendations from a task force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society. Results from a workshop. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1996;4:217-43.
3. Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M, et al. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol 1997;24:799-802.
4. Brignardello-Petersen R, Guyatt G, Schandelmaier S, et al. Knee arthroscopy versus conservative management in patients with degenerative knee disease: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016114.
5. Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23:508-18.
6. Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary - Goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res 2005;40:593-7.
7. Schünemann HJ, Puhan M, Goldstein R, et al. Measurement properties and interpretability of the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). COPD 2005;2:81-9.
8. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
9. Siemieniuk RA, Agoritsas T, Macdonald H, et al. Introduction to BMJ Rapid Recommendations. BMJ 2016;354:i5191.
10. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 2016;353:i2089.
11. Laine C, Taichman DB, Mulrow C. Trustworthy clinical guidelines. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:774-5.
12. Siemieniuk RAC, Harris IA, Agoritsas T, et al. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 2017;257:j1982.
13. Johnston BC, Ebrahim S, Carrasco-Labra A, et al. Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007953.
14. Mills KA, Naylor JM, Eyles JP, et al. Examining the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures for individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a model using the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score. J Rheumatol 2016;43:395-404.
15. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:102-9.
16. Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:28-36.
17. Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, et al. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis - a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods 2011;2:188-203.
18. Escobar A, Riddle D. Concordance between important change and acceptable symptom state following knee arthroplasty: the role of baseline scores. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014;22:1107-10.
19. Tubach F, Dougados M, Falissard B, et al. Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:526-30.
20. Escobar A, Garcia Perez L, Herrera-Espineira C, et al. Total knee replacement; minimal clinically important differences and responders. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013;21:2006-12.
21. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, 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.
22. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Michel BA, et al. Minimal clinically important rehabilitation effects in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. J Rheumatol 2002;29:131-8.
23. Bellamy N, Hochberg M, Tubach F, et al. Development of multinational definitions of minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptomatic state in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:972-80.
24. Browne JP, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey JD, et al. Mathematical coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and minimally important difference values. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:865-74.
25. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, et al. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15:273-80.
26. Ornetti P, Dougados M, Paternotte S, et al. Validation of a numerical rating scale to assess functional impairment in hip and knee osteoarthritis: comparison with the WOMAC function scale. Ann Rheumatic Dis 2011;70:740-6.
27. Monticone M, Ferrante S, Salvaderi S, et al. Responsiveness and minimal important changes for the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score in subjects undergoing rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2013;92:864-70.
28. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL, et al. Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1062-7.
29. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:524-34.
30. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Martin-Mola E, et al. Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: results from a prospective multinational study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012;64:1699-707.
31. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1523-32.
32. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making 2006;26:410-20.
33. Rouquette A, Blanchin M, Sébille V, et al. The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:433-40.
34. Zhang Y, Zhang S, Thabane L, et al. Although not consistently superior, the absolute approach to framing the minimally important difference has advantages over the relative approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:888-94.