What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure? A reconsideration of its clinical value in evaluating efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery

Robert J. Gatchel, Tom G. Mayer, Roger Chou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The Minimum Clinical Important Difference (MCID) was initially intended to provide outcome measures that would be more clinically meaningful than measurements based simply on mean improvement in some outcomes. Indeed, a basic concept behind the MCID was that statistically significant differences in measures did not necessarily reflect clinically meaningful benefits. Methods: This study provides a review of the literature suggesting that the MCID metric is not being applied and interpreted in practice in a manner that realizes its potential. The MCID has often been used as a means of delineating whether patients are "feeling better." This does not, though, necessarily indicate that they are "doing better" in terms of physical or socioeconomic functioning. Results: The imperfect correlation between "feeling" and "doing" better makes it difficult to interpret the clinical implications of articles using MCID measures, particularly in the lumbar spine fusion literature. Alternative and more scientifically rigorous approaches to the MCID are presented. Discussion: A call is made for a more comprehensive approach to synthesize a nearly decade's worth of clinical research that has still not yielded consensus concerning the best MCID approach to objectively document lumbar spine fusion patients' outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)387-397
Number of pages11
JournalClinical Journal of Pain
Volume28
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Emotions
Spine
Consensus
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Research

Keywords

  • anchor-based method
  • biopsychosocial
  • clinically meaningful benefits
  • distribution-based method
  • lumbar spine fusion
  • minimally important change
  • minimum clinical important difference

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure? A reconsideration of its clinical value in evaluating efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery. / Gatchel, Robert J.; Mayer, Tom G.; Chou, Roger.

In: Clinical Journal of Pain, Vol. 28, No. 5, 06.2012, p. 387-397.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fb3543b3848841599d254cef573246e9,
title = "What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure?: A reconsideration of its clinical value in evaluating efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery",
abstract = "Objectives: The Minimum Clinical Important Difference (MCID) was initially intended to provide outcome measures that would be more clinically meaningful than measurements based simply on mean improvement in some outcomes. Indeed, a basic concept behind the MCID was that statistically significant differences in measures did not necessarily reflect clinically meaningful benefits. Methods: This study provides a review of the literature suggesting that the MCID metric is not being applied and interpreted in practice in a manner that realizes its potential. The MCID has often been used as a means of delineating whether patients are {"}feeling better.{"} This does not, though, necessarily indicate that they are {"}doing better{"} in terms of physical or socioeconomic functioning. Results: The imperfect correlation between {"}feeling{"} and {"}doing{"} better makes it difficult to interpret the clinical implications of articles using MCID measures, particularly in the lumbar spine fusion literature. Alternative and more scientifically rigorous approaches to the MCID are presented. Discussion: A call is made for a more comprehensive approach to synthesize a nearly decade's worth of clinical research that has still not yielded consensus concerning the best MCID approach to objectively document lumbar spine fusion patients' outcomes.",
keywords = "anchor-based method, biopsychosocial, clinically meaningful benefits, distribution-based method, lumbar spine fusion, minimally important change, minimum clinical important difference",
author = "Gatchel, {Robert J.} and Mayer, {Tom G.} and Roger Chou",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182327f20",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "387--397",
journal = "Clinical Journal of Pain",
issn = "0749-8047",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure?

T2 - A reconsideration of its clinical value in evaluating efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery

AU - Gatchel, Robert J.

AU - Mayer, Tom G.

AU - Chou, Roger

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - Objectives: The Minimum Clinical Important Difference (MCID) was initially intended to provide outcome measures that would be more clinically meaningful than measurements based simply on mean improvement in some outcomes. Indeed, a basic concept behind the MCID was that statistically significant differences in measures did not necessarily reflect clinically meaningful benefits. Methods: This study provides a review of the literature suggesting that the MCID metric is not being applied and interpreted in practice in a manner that realizes its potential. The MCID has often been used as a means of delineating whether patients are "feeling better." This does not, though, necessarily indicate that they are "doing better" in terms of physical or socioeconomic functioning. Results: The imperfect correlation between "feeling" and "doing" better makes it difficult to interpret the clinical implications of articles using MCID measures, particularly in the lumbar spine fusion literature. Alternative and more scientifically rigorous approaches to the MCID are presented. Discussion: A call is made for a more comprehensive approach to synthesize a nearly decade's worth of clinical research that has still not yielded consensus concerning the best MCID approach to objectively document lumbar spine fusion patients' outcomes.

AB - Objectives: The Minimum Clinical Important Difference (MCID) was initially intended to provide outcome measures that would be more clinically meaningful than measurements based simply on mean improvement in some outcomes. Indeed, a basic concept behind the MCID was that statistically significant differences in measures did not necessarily reflect clinically meaningful benefits. Methods: This study provides a review of the literature suggesting that the MCID metric is not being applied and interpreted in practice in a manner that realizes its potential. The MCID has often been used as a means of delineating whether patients are "feeling better." This does not, though, necessarily indicate that they are "doing better" in terms of physical or socioeconomic functioning. Results: The imperfect correlation between "feeling" and "doing" better makes it difficult to interpret the clinical implications of articles using MCID measures, particularly in the lumbar spine fusion literature. Alternative and more scientifically rigorous approaches to the MCID are presented. Discussion: A call is made for a more comprehensive approach to synthesize a nearly decade's worth of clinical research that has still not yielded consensus concerning the best MCID approach to objectively document lumbar spine fusion patients' outcomes.

KW - anchor-based method

KW - biopsychosocial

KW - clinically meaningful benefits

KW - distribution-based method

KW - lumbar spine fusion

KW - minimally important change

KW - minimum clinical important difference

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861093436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861093436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182327f20

DO - 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182327f20

M3 - Article

C2 - 22395333

AN - SCOPUS:84861093436

VL - 28

SP - 387

EP - 397

JO - Clinical Journal of Pain

JF - Clinical Journal of Pain

SN - 0749-8047

IS - 5

ER -