Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MCID and PASS in Knee Surgeries. Theoretical Aspects and Clinical Relevance References

  • REVIEW
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

The application and interpretation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), following knee injuries, pathologies, and interventions, can be challenging. In recent years, the literature has been enriched with metrics to facilitate our understanding and interpretation of these outcome measures. Two commonly utilized tools include the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptoms state (PASS). These measures have demonstrated clinical value, however, they have often been under- or mis-reported. It is paramount to use them to understand the clinical significance of any statistically significant results. Still, it remains important to know their caveats and limitations. In this focused report on MCID and PASS, their definitions, methods of calculations, clinical relevance, interpretations, and limitations are reviewed and presented in a simple approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altman DG, Bland JM (2005) Standard deviations and standard errors. BMJ 331:903

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ballard C, Banister C, Khan Z, Cummings J, Demos G, Coate B, Youakim JM, Owen R, Stankovic S, Investigators ADP (2018) Evaluation of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pimavanserin versus placebo in patients with Alzheimer’s disease psychosis: a phase 2, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Lancet Neurol 17:213–222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, SooHoo NF, Bozic KJ (2017) Can preoperative patient-reported outcome measures be used to predict meaningful improvement in function after TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:149–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boffa A, Andriolo L, Franceschini M, Martino AD, Asunis E, Grassi A, Zaffagnini S, Filardo G (2021) Minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state in patients with knee osteoarthritis treated with PRP injection. Orthop J Sports Med 9:23259671211026240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Case LD, Ambrosius WT (2007) Power and sample size. Methods Mol Biol 404:377–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Clement ND, Weir D, Deehan D (2022) Meaningful values in the Short Form Health Survey-36 after total knee arthroplasty - an alternative to the EuroQol five-dimension index as a measure for health-related quality of life : minimal clinically important difference, minimal important change, patient-acceptable symptom state thresholds, and responsiveness. Bone Joint Res 11:477–483

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen J (1977) CHAPTER 1 - The Concepts of Power Analysis. In Cohen J (ed) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Academic Press, pp 1–17

  8. Cook CE (2008) Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther 16:E82-83

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Copay AG, Chung AS, Eyberg B, Olmscheid N, Chutkan N, Spangehl MJ (2018) Minimum clinically important difference: current trends in the orthopaedic literature, part i: upper extremity: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 6:e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Copay AG, Eyberg B, Chung AS, Zurcher KS, Chutkan N, Spangehl MJ (2018) Minimum clinically important difference: current trends in the orthopaedic literature, part ii: lower extremity: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 6:e2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:541–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cronbach LJ (1947) Test reliability; its meaning and determination. Psychometrika 12:1–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole MR (2001) Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94:149–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Freedman KB, Back S, Bernstein J (2001) Sample size and statistical power of randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:397–402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gagnier JJ, Mullins M, Huang H, Marinac-Dabic D, Ghambaryan A, Eloff B, Mirza F, Bayona M (2017) A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32:1688-1697.e7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hansen CF, Jensen J, Odgaard A, Siersma V, Comins JD, Brodersen J, Krogsgaard MR (2022) Four of five frequently used orthopedic PROMs possess inadequate content validity: a COSMIN evaluation of the mHHS, HAGOS, IKDC-SKF, KOOS and KNEES-ACL. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:3602–3615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hossain FS, Konan S, Patel S, Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Haddad FS (2015) The assessment of outcome after total knee arthroplasty: are we there yet? Bone Joint J 97-B:3–9

  18. Howard R, Phillips P, Johnson T, O’Brien J, Sheehan B, Lindesay J, Bentham P, Burns A, Ballard C, Holmes C, McKeith I, Barber R, Dening T, Ritchie C, Jones R, Baldwin A, Passmore P, Findlay D, Hughes A, Macharouthu A, Banerjee S, Jones R, Knapp M, Brown RG, Jacoby R, Adams J, Griffin M, Gray R (2011) Determining the minimum clinically important differences for outcomes in the DOMINO trial. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 26:812–817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hu G, Huang Q, Huang Z, Sun Z (2009) Methods to determine minimal clinically important difference. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 34:1058–1062

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelborne KD (2001) Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 29:600–613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jacquet C, Pioger C, Khakha R, Steltzlen C, Kley K, Pujol N, Ollivier M (2021) Evaluation of the “minimal clinically important difference” (MCID) of the KOOS, KSS and SF-12 scores after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:820–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Katz NP, Paillard FC, Ekman E (2015) Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions. J Orthop Surg Res 10:24

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi KY, Sung YG, Park DC, Lee HJ, In Y (2021) The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the WOMAC and factors related to achievement of the mcid after medial opening Wedge high tibial osteotomy for knee osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 49:2406–2415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. King MT (2011) A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11:171–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Krogsgaard MR, Hansen CF (2022) Patient-reported outcome measures: it is time for authors, reviewers, journal editors and health care strategists to take sufficient responsibility. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:3589–3593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kunze KN, Krivicich LM, Clapp IM, Bodendorfer BM, Nwachukwu BU, Chahla J, Nho SJ (2022) Machine learning algorithms predict achievement of clinically significant outcomes after orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 38:2090–2105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kuo AC, Giori NJ, Bowe TR, Manfredi L, Lalani NF, Nordin DA, Harris AHS (2020) Comparing methods to determine the minimal clinically important differences in patient-reported outcome measures for veterans undergoing elective total hip or knee arthroplasty in veterans health administration hospitals. JAMA Surg 155:404–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB (2007) Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 66 Suppl 3:iii40–41

  30. Lyman S, Lee Y-Y, McLawhorn AS, Islam W, MacLean CH (2018) What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 476:2432–2441

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Maggard MA, O’Connell JB, Liu JH, Etzioni DA, Ko CY (2003) Sample size calculations in surgery: are they done correctly? Surgery 134:275–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Maksymowych WP, Richardson R, Mallon C, van der Heijde D, Boonen A (2007) Evaluation and validation of the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 57:133–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Martin RK, Wastvedt S, Pareek A, Persson A, Visnes H, Fenstad AM, Moatshe G, Wolfson J, Engebretsen L (2022) Predicting subjective failure of ACL reconstruction: a machine learning analysis of the norwegian knee ligament register and patient reported outcomes. J ISAKOS 7:1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Molino J, Harrington J, Racine-Avila J, Aaron R (2022) Deconstructing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Orthop Res Rev 14:35–42

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Muller B, Yabroudi MA, Lynch A, Lai C-L, van Dijk CN, Fu FH, Irrgang JJ (2016) Defining thresholds for the patient acceptable symptom state for the IKDC subjective knee form and KOOS for patients who Underwent ACL reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 44:2820–2826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41:582–592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G (1997) Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50:869–879

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Patel S, Haunschild E, Gilat R, Knapik D, Evuarherhe A, Parvaresh KC, Chahla J, Yanke AB, Cole BJ (2021) Defining clinically significant outcomes following high tibial osteotomy with or without concomitant procedures. J Cartil Jt Preserv 1:100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjp.2021.100014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Persson K, Bergerson E, Svantesson E, Horvath A, Karlsson J, Musahl V, Samuelsson K, Hamrin Senorski E (2022) Greater proportion of patients report an acceptable symptom state after ACL reconstruction compared with non-surgical treatment: a 10-year follow-up from the Swedish national knee ligament registry. Br J Sports Med 56:862–869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Reito A, Raittio L, Helminen O (2020) Revisiting the sample size and statistical power of randomized controlled trials in orthopaedics after 2 decades. JBJS Rev 8:e0079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-64

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ross M (1989) Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychol Rev Am Psychol Assoc, US 96:341–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.2.341

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sabharwal S, Patel NK, Holloway I, Athanasiou T (2015) Sample size calculations in orthopaedics randomised controlled trials: revisiting research practices. Acta Orthop Belg 81:115–122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schmidt FL, Le H, Ilies R (2003) Beyond alpha: an empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual differences constructs. Psychol Methods 8:206–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Porucznik CA, Powell AP (2009) Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:927–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tubach F, Dougados M, Falissard B, Baron G, Logeart I, Ravaud P (2006) Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum 55:526–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tubach F, Pham T, Skomsvoll JF, Mikkelsen K, Bjørneboe O, Ravaud P, Dougados M, Kvien TK (2006) Stability of the patient acceptable symptomatic state over time in outcome criteria in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 55:960–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Felson D, Hochberg M, van der Heijde D, Dougados M (2005) Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 64:29–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Felson D, Hochberg M, van der Heijde D, Dougados M (2005) Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 64:34–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. de Vet HCW, Ostelo RWJG, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM (2007) Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16:131–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wiklund I (2004) Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health-related quality of life. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 18:351–363

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wyrwich KW (2004) Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection? J Biopharm Stat 14:97–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2005) Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 14:285–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zsidai B, Narup E, Senorski EH, Lind M, Spalding T, Musahl V, Samuelsson K, Irrgang JJ (2022) The knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score: shortcomings in evaluating knee function in persons undergoing ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:3594–3598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no funding for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK

    Ahmed Mabrouk

  2. Aix-Marseille University, APHM, CNRS, ISM, Sainte-Marguerite Hospital, Institute for Locomotion, Marseille, France

    Ahmed Mabrouk & Matthieu Ollivier

  3. Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Benedict Nwachukwu & Ayoosh Pareek

  4. Orthopaedic Research Department, Göteborg University, Göteborg, SE, Sweden

    Jon Karlsson

  5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Luxembourg – Clinique d’Eich, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Caroline Mouton

  6. Sports Medicine and Science, Luxembourg Institute of Research in Orthopaedics, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Caroline Mouton

  7. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    R. Kyle Martin

Authors
  1. Ahmed Mabrouk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benedict Nwachukwu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayoosh Pareek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jon Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caroline Mouton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthieu Ollivier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. Kyle Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Mabrouk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mabrouk, A., Nwachukwu, B., Pareek, A. et al. MCID and PASS in Knee Surgeries. Theoretical Aspects and Clinical Relevance References. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 31, 2060–2067 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07359-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07359-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation