Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions

被引:245
作者
Katz, Nathaniel P. [1 ,2 ]
Paillard, Florence C. [1 ]
Ekman, Evan [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Analges Solut, Natick, MA 01760 USA
[2] Tufts Univ, Sch Med, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[3] Appalachian State Univ, Dept Athlet, Appalachian Reg Orthopaed & Sports Med Ctr, Boone, NC 28607 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH | 2015年 / 10卷
关键词
MCID; MDC; Anchor-based methods; Distribution-based methods; Orthopedic surgery; Pain; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; LUMBAR SPINE SURGERY; IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOMES; TRIALS; KNEE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPLACEMENT;
D O I
10.1186/s13018-014-0144-x
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The overarching goals of treatments for orthopedic conditions are generally to improve or restore function and alleviate pain. Results of clinical trials are generally used to determine whether a treatment is efficacious; however, a statistically significant improvement may not actually be clinically important, i.e., meaningful to the patient. To determine whether an intervention has produced clinically important benefits requires a two-step process: first, determining the magnitude of change considered clinically important for a particular measure in the relevant population and, second, applying this yardstick to a patient's data to determine whether s/he has benefited from treatment. Several metrics have been devised to quantify clinically important differences, including the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and clinically important difference (CID). Herein, we review the methods to generate the MCID and other metrics and their use and interpretation in clinical trials and practice. We particularly highlight the many pitfalls associated with the generation and utilization of these metrics that can impair their correct use. These pitfalls include the fact that different pain measures yield different MCIDs, that efficacy in clinical trials is impacted by various factors (population characteristics, trial design), that the MCID value is impacted by the method used to calculate it (anchor, distribution), by the type of anchor chosen and by the definition (threshold) of improvement. The MCID is also dependent on the population characteristics such as disease type and severity, sex, age, etc. For appropriate use, the MCID should be applied to changes in individual subjects, not to group changes. The MCID and CID are useful tools to define general guidelines to determine whether a treatment produces clinically meaningful effects. However, the many pitfalls associated with these metrics require a detailed understanding of the methods to calculate them and their context of use. Orthopedic surgeons that will use these metrics need to carefully understand them and be aware of their pitfalls.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] AAOS, 2013, TREATM OST KNEE EV B
  • [2] Angst F, 2001, ARTHRIT RHEUM-ARTHR, V45, P384, DOI 10.1002/1529-0131(200108)45:4<384::AID-ART352>3.0.CO
  • [3] 2-0
  • [4] Did the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Osteoarthritis Guidelines Miss the Mark?
    Bannuru, Raveendhara R.
    Vaysbrot, Elizaveta E.
    McIntyre, Louis F.
    [J]. ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2014, 30 (01) : 86 - 89
  • [5] Beaton DE, 2001, J RHEUMATOL, V28, P400
  • [6] STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
    BLAND, JM
    ALTMAN, DG
    [J]. LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) : 307 - 310
  • [7] Differentiating minimum clinically important difference for primary and revision lumbar fusion surgeries Clinical article
    Carreon, Leah Y.
    Bratcher, Kelly R.
    Canan, Chelsea E.
    Burke, Lauren O.
    Djurasovic, Mladen
    Glassman, Steven D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2013, 18 (01) : 102 - 106
  • [8] Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion
    Carreon, Leah Y.
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Campbell, Mitchell J.
    Anderson, Paul A.
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2010, 10 (06) : 469 - 474
  • [9] 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, and Pain Scales
    Copay, Anne G.
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Subach, Brian R.
    Berven, Sigurd
    Schuler, Thomas C.
    Carreon, Leah Y.
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2008, 8 (06) : 968 - 974
  • [10] Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods
    Copay, Anne G.
    Subach, Brian R.
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    Schuler, Thomas C.
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2007, 7 (05) : 541 - 546