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
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 May 11;7(5):e015587.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015587.

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

Tahira Devji  1 , Gordon H Guyatt  1   2 , Lyubov Lytvyn  3 , Romina Brignardello-Petersen  1   4 , Farid Foroutan  1   5 , Behnam Sadeghirad  1   6 , Rachelle Buchbinder  7   8 , Rudolf W Poolman  9 , Ian A Harris  10   11 , Alonso Carrasco-Labra  1   4 , Reed A C Siemieniuk  1   12 , Per O Vandvik  13
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Tahira Devji et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To identify the most credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient important outcomes in patients with degenerative knee disease, and to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations for arthroscopic surgery versus conservative management DESIGN: Systematic review.

Outcome measures: Estimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for knee symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO.

Eligibility criteria: We included original studies documenting the development of anchor-based MIDs for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reported in randomised controlled trials included in the linked systematic review and meta-analysis and judged by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel as critically important for informing their recommendation: measures of pain, function and HRQoL.

Results: 13 studies reported 95 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 8 PRO instruments and/or their subdomains that measure knee pain, function or HRQoL. All studies used a transition rating (global rating of change) as the anchor to ascertain the MID. Among PROs with more than 1 estimated MID, we found wide variation in MID values. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. We identified the following most credible MIDs: Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; pain: 12, function: 13), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS; pain: 12, activities of daily living: 8) and EuroQol five dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D; 0.15).

Conclusions: We were able to distinguish between more and less credible MID estimates and provide best estimates for key instruments that informed evidence presentation in the associated systematic review and judgements made by the Rapid Recommendation panel.

Trial registration number: CRD42016047912.

Keywords: Minimal Important difference; Minimal clinically important difference; degenerative knee disease; osteoarthritis; patient reported outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram. MID, minimally important difference; PRO, patient-reported outcome.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Subgroup analysis for WOMAC pain by intervention type. MID, minimally important difference; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Subgroup analysis for WOMAC function by intervention type. MID, minimally important difference; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    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. 10.1002/art.23176 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. 10.1016/S1063-4584(05)80101-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. 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 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016114 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002524 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources