본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty: review of terminologies, methods and proposed values

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Purpose: The aim of this article was to highlight various terminologies and methods of calculation of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and summarize MCID values of frequently used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) evaluating total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Materials and methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched through May 2019. Of 71 articles identified, 18 articles matched and underwent a comprehensive analysis for terminologies used to indicate clinical significance, method of calculation, and reported MCID values. Results: MCID was the most common terminology (67% studies) and anchor-based methods were most commonly employed (67% studies) to calculate it. The analytical methods used to calculate and the estimated values of MCID for clinical use are highly variable. MCID values reported for WOMAC scores are 20.5 to 36.0, 17.6 to 33.0 and 12.9 to 25.0 for pain, function and stiffness sub-scales, respectively, and 4.7 to 10.0 for OKS. Conclusion: There was lack of standardization in the methodology employed to calculate MCID in the available studies. MCID values reported in this review could be used for patients undergoing TKA, although caution is advised in their interpretation and application.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this article was to highlight various terminologies and methods of calculation of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and summarize MCID values of frequently used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) evaluating total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Materials and methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched through May 2019. Of 71 articles identified, 18 articles matched and underwent a comprehensive analysis for terminologies used to indicate clinical significance, method of calculation, and reported MCID values. Results: MCID was the most common terminology (67% studies) and anchor-based methods were most commonly employed (67% studies) to calculate it. The analytical methods used to calculate and the estimated values of MCID for clinical use are highly variable. MCID values reported for WOMAC scores are 20.5 to 36.0, 17.6 to 33.0 and 12.9 to 25.0 for pain, function and stiffness sub-scales, respectively, and 4.7 to 10.0 for OKS. Conclusion: There was lack of standardization in the methodology employed to calculate MCID in the available studies. MCID values reported in this review could be used for patients undergoing TKA, although caution is advised in their interpretation and application.

참고문헌 (37)

  1. Ola Rolfson, "Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries", Acta Orthopaedica, 87(sup1), pp.9~23 (2016), Informa UK Limited[DOI]
  2. Anthoine E, "Sample size used to validate a scale : a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures", Health Quality life Outcomes, 12, pp.176~ (2014)[DOI]
  3. Insall JN, "Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 248, pp.13~14 (1989)
  4. Ware JE Jr, "The MOS 36-item short-form health survey(SF-36)", I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care, 30(6), pp.473~483 (1992)
  5. Ware J Jr, "A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey : construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity", Med Care, 34(3), pp.220~233 (1996)[DOI]
  6. Murray DW, "The use of the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores", J bone Joint Surg Br Vol, 89(8), pp.1010~1014 (2007)[DOI]
  7. Bellamy N, "A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee", Clin Rheumat, 5(2), pp.231~241 (1986)[DOI]
  8. Page P, "Beyond statistical significance : clinical interpretation of rehabilitation research literature", Int J Phys Ther, 9(5), pp.726~736 (2014)
  9. Celik D, "Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used hip-, knee-, foot-, and ankle-specific questionnaires: a systematic review", J Clin Epidemiol, 113, pp.44~57 (2019)[DOI]
  10. Wright A, "Clinimetrics corner : a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference(MCID)", J Man Manipulative Ther, 20(3), pp.160~166 (2012)[DOI]
  11. King MT, "A point of minimal important difference(MID) : a critique of terminology and methods", Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 11(2), pp.171~184 (2011)[DOI]
  12. Joseph D. Maratt, "Predictors of Satisfaction Following Total Knee Arthroplasty", The Journal of Arthroplasty, 30(7), pp.1142~1145 (2015), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  13. Bert M. Chesworth, "Willingness to go through surgery again validated the WOMAC clinically important difference from THR", TKR surgery, 2008, pp.61(9), 907~918[DOI]
  14. Escobar A, "Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF36 after total knee replacement", Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 15(3), pp.273~280 (2007)[DOI]
  15. Escobar A, "Concordance between important change and acceptable symptom state following knee arthroplasty : the role of baseline scores", Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 22(8), pp.1107~1110 (2014)[DOI]
  16. Quintana JM, "Health-related quality of life and appropriateness of knee or hip joint replacement", Arch Intern Med, 166(2), pp.220~226 (2006)[DOI]
  17. Escobar A, "Total knee replacement; minimal clinically important differences and responders", Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 21(12), pp.2006~2012 (2013)[DOI]
  18. Clement ND, "The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford Knee Score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol, Arthrosc, 22(8), pp.1933~1939 (2014)[DOI]
  19. Kiran A, "A novel methodological approach for measuring symptomatic change following total joint arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 29(11), pp.2140~2145 (2014)[DOI]
  20. Bin Abd Razak HR, "Age and preoperative Knee Society Score are significant predictors of outcomes among Asians following total knee arthroplasty", J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol, 98(9), pp.735~741 (2016)[DOI]
  21. Lee WC, "The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 25(11), pp.3354~3359 (2017)[DOI]
  22. Berliner JL, "Can preoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measures be used to predict meaningful improvement in function after TKA?", Clin Orthop Related Res, 475(1), pp.149~157 (2017)[DOI]
  23. Lizaur-Utrilla A, "Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for Knee Society Scores", Knee Surg Sports Traumat Arthroscopy (2019)[DOI]
  24. Blevins JL, "Comparison of expectations and outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis versus osteoarthritis patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 34(9), pp.1946~1952 (2019)[DOI]
  25. Clement ND, "Meaningful changes in the Short Form 12 physical and mental summary scores after total knee arthroplasty", Knee, 26(4), pp.861~868 (2019)[DOI]
  26. Keurentjes JC, "Willingness to undergo surgery again validated clinically important differences in health-related quality of life after total hip replacement or total knee replacement surgery", J Clin Epidemiol, 67(1), pp.114~120 (2014)[DOI]
  27. Kiran A, "Variations in good Patient Reported Outcomes after total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 30(8), pp.1364~1371 (2015)[DOI]
  28. Beard DJ, "Meaningful changes for the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores after joint replacement surgery", J Clin Epidemiol, 68(1), pp.73~79 (2015)[DOI]
  29. Ingelsrud LH, "Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee Score and the Forgotten Joint Score at 1 year after total knee replacement", Acta Orthopaedica, 89(5), pp.541~547 (2018)[DOI]
  30. Norman GR, "Interpretation of changes in healthrelated quality of life : the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation", Med Care, 41(5), pp.582~592 (2003)[DOI]
  31. Copay AG, "Minimum clinically important difference : current trends in the orthopaedic literature, Part II : Lower extremity : a systematic review", JBJS Rev, 6(9), pp.e2~ (2018)[DOI]
  32. Jaeschke R, "Measurement of health status", Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clin Trials, 10(4), pp.407~415 (1989)[DOI]
  33. Jayadevappa R, "Minimal important difference to infer changes in health-related quality of life-a systematic review", J Clin Epidemiol, 89, pp.188~198 (2017)[DOI]
  34. Turner D, "Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference", J Clin Epidemiol, 62(4), pp.374~379 (2009)[DOI]
  35. "Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance", Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(1), pp.79~ (2006), Springer Science and Business Media LLC[DOI]
  36. Revicki D, "Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes", J Clin Epidemiol, 61(2), pp.102~109 (2008)[DOI]
  37. Scuderi GR, "The new Knee Society Knee Scoring System", Clin Orthop Related Res, 470(1), pp.3~19 (2012)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient‑acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic reviewAndreas Bell, Filippo Migliorini, Francesco Simeone, Luise Schäfer, Nicola Maffulli, Ulf Krister Hofmann대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2024 · 제36권 Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in knee arthroplasty patients: a systematic review of the literatureAlexander L. Neuwirth, David P. Trofa, Natalia Czerwonka, Puneet Gupta, Sohil S. Desai, Thomas R. Hickernell대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2023 · 제35권 Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?Chang Wai-Yee Esther, Lee Qunn-Jid, Wong Yiu-Chung대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2020 · 제32권 Serial changes in patient‑reported outcome measures and satisfaction rate during long‑term follow‑up after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta‑analysisDarryl D. D’Lima, Hyuk-Soo Han, Hyunkwon Kim, Jisu Park, Moon Jong Chang, Tae Woo Kim대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2024 · 제36권 Patients Still Wish for Key Improvements after Total Knee Arthroplasty김태균, Ankur Bamne, Seok Jin Kim, Yeon Gwi Kang, Young Dong Song대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2015 · 제27권 제1호One-year Oxford knee scores should be used in preference to 6-month scores when assessing the outcome of total knee arthroplastyClement N. D., Howie C. R., MacDonald D., Ng N., Scott C. E. H.대한슬관절학회 · Knee Surgery and Related Research2020 · 제32권

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (63건)