From analyses of individual patient data ( seven studies , 918 patients ) , we found baseline pain strongly associated with absolute , but not relative , MCID as patients with higher baseline pain needed larger pain reduction to perceive relief .
Conclusions The MCID in acute pain varied greatly between studies and was influenced by baseline pain , definitions of improved patients and study design .
Background The minimum clinical ly important difference ( MCID ) is used to interpret the clinical relevance of results reported by trials and meta-analyses as well as to plan sample sizes in new studies .
However , there is a lack of consensus about the size of MCID in acute pain , which is a core symptom affecting patients across many clinical conditions .
Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum?
BACKGROUND CONTEXT Various method ologies have been used in attempting to eluci date a st and ard method for calculating minimal clinical ly important difference ( MCID ) . A consensus-based decision ( Initiative on Methods , Measurement , and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials [ IMMPACT ] group ) suggested a 30 % reduction from baseline as a means to define the MCID of self-report back pain measures . Additionally , important psychometric issues need to be addressed regarding use of an independent measure of the same construct as an external criterion , instead of simply using another self-report measure , when using an anchor-based approach to MCID . PURPOSE The purpose was to test the validity of recently published guidelines regarding MCID using self-report back pain measures and objective socioeconomic outcomes . STUDY DESIGN / SETTING This is a prospect i ve study assessing change scores on commonly used spinal pain assessment measures in patients with chronic disabling occupational spinal disorders ( CDOSDs ) treated in a regional referral rehabilitation center performing interdisciplinary functional restoration . PATIENT SAMPLE The study consisted of consecutive cohort of patients ( N=1,180 ) with CDOSDs completing a functional restoration program . OUTCOMES MEASURES Self-report measures including the Oswestry Disability Index ( ODI ) and the physical component summary ( PCS ) and mental component summary ( MCS ) of the Short Form-36 ( SF-36 ) obtained before and after treatment , were compared with objective socioeconomically relevant outcomes obtained 1 year after treatment ( ie , work status and additional health-care utilization ) , that were the external criteria for evaluating MCID . METHODS Pre- to posttreatment improvement was calculated separately for each measure , and subjects were divided into two groups based on the change in scores relative to baseline : 30 % or greater versus less than 30 % improvement . One-year posttreatment objective socioeconomic outcomes were used as independent external criteria relevant to the CDOSD population . This population is often studied as the most costly and problematic cohort in spine care . RESULTS The ODI and SF-36 MCS were not associated with any of the objective 1-year outcomes used as external criteria . Reduced post-rehabilitation health-care utilization ( based on the percentage of patients pursuing health care from a new provider ) was weakly associated with 30 % or greater improvement on the SF-36 PCS , relative to patients whose scores changed by less than 30 % relative to baseline ( 17.0 % vs. 21.1 % ) . The same was true for the ODI and return-to-work . CONCLUSIONS When objective and independent criteria are used ( socioeconomic outcomes ) in a CDOSD cohort , the 30 % improvement in the ODI and SF-36 may not be a valid MCID index . This replicates similar conclusions made by an independent research group using a distribution-based approach to MCID . The validity of the MCID concept rests on future research using objective external criteria . Moreover , there remains a question whether the term " important " in MCID can be unequivocally and operationally defined as a reliable construct
From analyses of individual patient data ( seven studies , 918 patients ) , we found baseline pain strongly associated with absolute , but not relative , MCID as patients with higher baseline pain needed larger pain reduction to perceive relief .
Conclusions The MCID in acute pain varied greatly between studies and was influenced by baseline pain , definitions of improved patients and study design .
Background The minimum clinical ly important difference ( MCID ) is used to interpret the clinical relevance of results reported by trials and meta-analyses as well as to plan sample sizes in new studies .
However , there is a lack of consensus about the size of MCID in acute pain , which is a core symptom affecting patients across many clinical conditions .