Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerable by baseline pain and methodological factors: Systematic review of empirical studies

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  1. Overall bias and sample sizes were unchanged in ICU trials over time: a meta-epidemiological study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  2. Transparent and systematic reporting of meta-epidemiological studies

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Increased Risks for Random Errors are Common in Outcomes Graded as High Certainty of Evidence

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Community-based football in men with prostate cancer: 1-year follow-up on a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Komplekse interventioner i medicinsk forskning

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to interpret the relevance of treatment effects, e.g. when developing clinical guidelines, evaluating trial results or planning sample sizes. There is currently no agreement on an appropriate MCID in chronic pain and little is known about which contextual factors cause variation.

METHODS: Systematic review. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Eligible studies determined MCID for chronic pain based on a one-dimensional pain scale, a patient-reported transition scale of perceived improvement; and either a mean change analysis (mean difference in pain among minimally improved patients) or a threshold analysis (pain reduction associated with best sensitivity and specificity for identifying minimally improved patients). Main results were descriptively summarized due to considerable heterogeneity, which was quantified using meta-analyses and explored using subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

RESULTS: We included 66 studies (31.254 patients). Median absolute MCID was 23 mm on a 0-100 mm scale [IQR 12-39] and median relative MCID was 34% [IQR 22-45] among studies using the mean change approach. In both cases, heterogeneity was very high: absolute MCID I2 = 99%, relative MCID I2 = 96%. High variation was also seen among studies using the threshold approach: median absolute MCID was 20 mm [IQR 15-30] and relative MCID was 32% [IQR 15-41]. Absolute MCID was strongly associated with baseline pain, explaining approximately two-thirds of the variation, and to a lesser degree with the operational definition of minimum pain relief and clinical condition. A total of 15 clinical and methodological factors were assessed as possible causes for variation in MCID.

CONCLUSIONS: MCID for chronic pain relief vary considerably. Baseline pain is strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, measures. To a much lesser degree, MCID is also influenced by the operational definition of relevant pain relief and possibly by clinical condition. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of an MCID are required when classifying effect sizes as clinically important or trivial.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Vol/bind101
Sider (fra-til)87-106.e2.
Antal sider22
ISSN0895-4356
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2018

ID: 53806279