Elsevier

The Spine Journal

Volume 7, Issue 5, September–October 2007, Pages 541-546
The Spine Journal

Clinical Study
Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008Get rights and content

Abstract

Background context

The effectiveness of spinal surgery as a treatment option is currently evaluated through the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) represents the smallest improvement considered worthwhile by a patient. The concept of an MCID is offered as the new standard for determining effectiveness of a given treatment and describing patient satisfaction in reference to that treatment.

Purpose

Our goal is to review the various definitions of MCID and the methods available to determine MCID.

Study design

The primary means of determining the MCID for a specific treatment are divided into anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Each method is further subdivided and examined in detail.

Methods

The overall limitations of the MCID concept are first identified. The basic assumptions, statistical biases, and shortcomings of each method are examined in detail.

Results

Each method of determining the MCID has specific shortcomings. Three general limitations in the accurate determination of an MCID have been identified: the multiplicity of MCID determinations, the loss of the patient's perspective, and the relationship between pretreatment baseline and posttreatment change scores.

Conclusions

An ideal means of determining the MCID for a given intervention is yet to be determined. It is possible to develop a useful method provided that the assumptions and methodology are initially declared. Our efforts toward the establishment of a MCID will rely on the establishment of specific external criteria based on the symptoms of the patient and treatment intervention being evaluated.

Introduction

In everyday discourse, a significant difference is understood as a change that is important or meaningful. In the world of statistics, a significant difference is simply a difference that is unlikely to be caused by chance or happenstance and has a mathematical basis for such a claim. In the realm of health care, a difference may be statistically significant based on a simple numerical value, yet may at the same time be of little or no importance to the health or quality of life of patients afflicted by a certain disease. Furthermore, the size of the sample being tested will often contribute to the statistical significance of a given variable, such that a seemingly unimportant detail may gain apparent statistical significance. For example, most clinical trials and multicenter studies rely on large patient samples; small treatment effects may be identified as statistically significant. As a result, clinicians are left to decipher the importance of seemingly statistically significant results to their own patients.

The concept of a “clinically important difference” evolved as a way to overcome the shortcomings of the “statistically significant difference.” A clinically important difference represents a change that would be considered meaningful and worthwhile by the patient such that he/she would consider repeating the intervention if it were his/her choice to make again. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a threshold value for such a change. Any amount of change greater than the MCID threshold is considered to be meaningful or important. Any patient whose answers allow them to reach the MCID threshold are considered “responders” [1]. The proportion of responders to total patients involved in a given treatment indicates to a clinician the likelihood of his/her patients also responding favorably to the same treatment [2].

The definition of an MCID would be particularly helpful in the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs refer to the patient's evaluation of a health condition and its treatment. PROs are generally used in medical research for three reasons [1]. First, the patient may be the only source of information. Some treatment effects can only be experienced by the patient. For instance, we rely entirely on a patient to assess physiological responses such as pain and nausea, for which there are no adequate observable or physical measures. Second, clinical measurements do not always match a patient's evaluation. Improvement in a clinical measure does not always correspond to an improvement in patient's pain and disability. For instance, the radiological evidence of bridging bone after spinal fusion surgery indicates a radiographically successful surgery. However, patients may still report pain and disability despite such evidence of bony fusion [3], [4]. Third, clinicians may obtain information known only to patients by directly asking questions of them. This is commonly done in clinical evaluations. PROs provide a structured and reproducible way to obtain this information. PROs are not biased by third-party interpretation and often remain reliable in studies in which significant interobserver bias may occur.

Patient reporting of outcomes has become an integral part of the evaluation of spinal interventions because back pain treatment primarily affects a patient's pain level, functional status, and overall quality of life [5]. Commonly used PRO measurements in spinal surgery research are pain scales, the Oswestry Disability Index, and the Short Form of the Medical Outcomes Study. No definitive MCID values have been established for these three PRO instruments in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

MCID was originally defined as “the smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate, in the absence of troublesome side effects and excessive cost, a change in the patient's management” [6]. This definition was later simplified to “the smallest change that is important to patients” [7]. MCID has recently been called “the new metric on the block” [8]. This review will describe the methods used to calculate MCID and their shortcomings. As it will be described, many issues are still unresolved in the determination of MCID, which render its new metrics status decidedly premature.

Section snippets

Determinations of MCID

Two general approaches have been used to determine MCID: anchor-based methods and distribution-based methods. All approaches measure a quantifiable change in outcomes, but the specific choice of approach will decide the type of change measured [9], [10].

Limitations of MCID determinations

Three main limitations remain in the methods of MCID definitions: each method produces a MCID value different from the other methods, MCID definitions do not take into account the cost of treatment to the patient, and the change in PRO scores depends on the patient initial baseline status.

Summary

Clearly, clinicians need a systematic way to assess the perceived benefit of a certain treatment based on individual patient improvement relative to both cost and risk of complications. MCID would ideally provide a specific threshold to serve as a treatment goal and is already used in that regard. For instance, MCID is included in the evaluation of clinical trials, but the Food and Drug Administration admits its need for further information about MCID [1]. The potential usefulness of MCID is to

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the members of the Lumbar Spine Study Group for their supported.

References (35)

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims

    (2006)
  • P. Fritzell et al.

    Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain. A multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group

    Spine

    (2001)
  • E.M. Laasonen et al.

    Low-back pain after lumbar fusion

    Spine

    (1989)
  • D.E. Beaton

    Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness

    Spine

    (2000)
  • P.W. Stratford et al.

    Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1

    Phys Ther

    (1998)
  • R.M. Schwartzstein et al.

    Interactive textbook on clinical research, ch 23

    Dyspnea: NIH

    (2003)
  • D.E. Beaton et al.

    Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness

    J Rheumatol

    (2001)
  • Cited by (1147)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    FDA device/drug status: not applicable.

    Authors acknowledge a financial relationship (Medtronic), which may indirectly relate to the subject of this research.

    View full text