Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct;473(10):3235-41.
doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4376-9. Epub 2015 Jun 4.

The Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation Score for Patients With Distal Radius Fractures

Affiliations

The Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation Score for Patients With Distal Radius Fractures

Monique M J Walenkamp et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Oct.

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: The Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) is a commonly used instrument in upper extremity surgery and in research. However, to recognize a treatment effect expressed as a change in PRWE, it is important to be aware of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and the minimum detectable change (MDC). The MCID of an outcome tool like the PRWE is defined as the smallest change in a score that is likely to be appreciated by a patient as an important change, while the MDC is defined as the smallest amount of change that can be detected by an outcome measure. A numerical change in score that is less than the MCID, even when statistically significant, does not represent a true clinically relevant change. To our knowledge, the MCID and MDC of the PRWE have not been determined in patients with distal radius fractures.

Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) What is the MCID of the PRWE score for patients with distal radius fractures? (2) What is the MDC of the PRWE?

Methods: Our prospective cohort study included 102 patients with a distal radius fracture and a median age of 59 years (interquartile range [IQR], 48-66 years). All patients completed the PRWE questionnaire during each of two separate visits. At the second visit, patients were asked to indicate the degree of clinical change they appreciated since the previous visit. Accordingly, patients were categorized in two groups: (1) minimally improved or (2) no change. The groups were used to anchor the changes observed in the PRWE score to patients' perspectives of what was clinically important. We determined the MCID using an anchor-based receiver operator characteristic method. In this context, the change in the PRWE score was considered a diagnostic test, and the anchor (minimally improved or no change as noted by the patients from visit to visit) was the gold standard. The optimal receiver operator characteristic cutoff point calculated with the Youden index reflected the value of the MCID.

Results: In our study, the MCID of the PRWE was 11.5 points. The area under the curve was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) for the pain subscale and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57-0.85) for the function subscale. We determined the MDC to be 11.0 points.

Conclusions: We determined the MCID of the PRWE score for patients with distal radius fractures using the anchor-based approach and verified that the MDC of the PRWE was sufficiently small to detect our MCID.

Clinical relevance: We recommend using an improvement on the PRWE of more than 11.5 points as the smallest clinically relevant difference when evaluating the effects of treatments and when performing sample-size calculations on studies of distal radius fractures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The global rating of change (GRC) scale used in the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) questionnaire is shown. The anchor questions allowed patients to assess their current health status regarding wrist function and wrist pain, and compare their status with that of their previous visit.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The flowchart shows patient selection methods used for the study.

Comment in

References

    1. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–114. doi: 10.1097/00002281-200203000-00006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG, Wells G, Boers M, Strand V, Shea B. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology: minimal clinically important difference. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:400–405. - PubMed
    1. Beerekamp MS, Ubbink DT, Maas M, Luitse JS, Kloen P, Blokhuis TJ, Segers MJ, Marmor M, Schep NW, Dijkgraaf MG, Goslings JC. Project group of the EF3X-trial. Fracture surgery of the extremities with the intra-operative use of 3D-RX: q randomized multicenter trial (EF3X-trial) BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:151. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-151. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Calfee RP, Adams AA. Clinical research and patient-rated outcome measures in hand surgery. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37:851–855. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.01.043. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1. - DOI - PubMed