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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altman DG, Bland JM (2005) Standard deviations and standard errors. BMJ 331:903
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
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
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
Case LD, Ambrosius WT (2007) Power and sample size. Methods Mol Biol 404:377–408
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
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
Cook CE (2008) Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther 16:E82-83
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
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
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
Cronbach LJ (1947) Test reliability; its meaning and determination. Psychometrika 12:1–16
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415
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
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
King MT (2011) A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11:171–184
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Molino J, Harrington J, Racine-Avila J, Aaron R (2022) Deconstructing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Orthop Res Rev 14:35–42
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Wyrwich KW (2004) Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection? J Biopharm Stat 14:97–110
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
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
Funding
There was no funding for this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07359-2