Cited by 416Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments

Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: Results from a prospective multinational study

Open access
Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Martin‐Mola, E., Awada, H., Bellamy, N., Bombardier, C., Felson, D. T., Hajjaj‐Hassouni, N. +6 more·2012·Arthritis Care & Research

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the minimum clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) values for 4 generic outcomes in 5 rheumatic diseases and 7 countries. Methods: We conducted a multinational (Australia, France, Italy, Lebanon, Morocco, Spain, and The Netherlands) 4‐week cohort study involving 1,532 patients who were prescribed nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, hip and/or knee osteoarthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis. The MCII and PASS values were estimated with the 75th percentile approach for 4 generic outcomes: pain, patient global assessment, functional disability, and physician global assessment, all normalized to a 0–100 score. Results: For the whole sample, the estimated MCII values for absolute change at 4 weeks were −17 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] −18, −15) for pain; −15 (95% CI −16, −14) for patient global assessment; −12 (95% CI −13, −11) for functional disability assessment; and −14 (95% CI −15, −14) for physician global assessment. For the whole sample, the estimated PASS values were 42 (95% CI 40, 44) for pain; 43 (95% CI 41, 45) for patient global assessment; 43 (95% CI 41, 44) for functional disability assessment; and 39 (95% CI 37, 40) for physician global assessment. Estimates were consistent across diseases and countries (for subgroups ≥20 patients). Conclusion: This work allows for promoting the use of values of MCII (15 of 100 for absolute improvement, 20% for relative improvement) and PASS (40 of 100) in reporting the results of trials of any of the 5 involved rheumatic diseases with pain, patient global assessment, physical function, or physician global assessment used as outcome criteria.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acr.21747

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The MCID threshold for VAS and WOMAC scores was defined as a 20% fluctuation from baseline of included studies according to previous research.

    “The MCID threshold for the VAS and WOMAC scores was defined as a 20% fluctuation from the baseline of the included studies according to previous researches [33–36], and calculated as follows: 1.18/10 for VAS for pain, 8.97/96 for WOMAC total score, 2.12/20 for WOMAC pain score, 6.62/68 for WOMAC function score, and 0.76/8 for WOMAC stiffness score.”

    From Efficacy and safety of curcuminoids alone in alleviating pain and dysfunction for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (2022) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Discussion recommends 20% relative improvement from baseline as an MCII threshold for pain and function outcomes in five rheumatic diseases. It does not establish that threshold for WOMAC total, pain, function, and stiffness scores specifically, and it concerns improvement rather than fluctuation in either direction. The cited paper also does not supply the VAS and WOMAC score cutoffs listed in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Altman R, Brandt K, Hochberg M, Moskowitz R, Bellamy N, Bloch DA, et al. Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis: recommendations from a task force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society. Results from a workshop. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1996;4:217-43.
  2. Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M, Brooks P, Strand V, Tugwell P, et al. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis: consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol 1997;24:799 -802.
  3. Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES): osteoarthritis section. Recommendations for the reg- istration of drugs used in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1996;55:552-7.
  4. Wright JG. Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple. Med Care 2003;41:597-8.
  5. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002; 14:109 -14.
  6. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.
  7. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient- reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64: 29 -33.
  8. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K. Meaningful change in cancer- specific quality of life scores: differences between improve- ment and worsening. Qual Life Res 2002;11:207-21.
  9. Guyatt GH, Jaeschke RJ. Reassessing quality-of-life instru- ments in the evaluation of new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;12:621-6.
  10. Schwartz AL, Meek PM, Nail LM, Fargo J, Lundquist M, Donofrio M, et al. Measurement of fatigue: determining min- imally important clinical differences. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55:239 -44.
  11. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important differ- ence. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
  12. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:81-7.
  13. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient- reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:34 -7.
  14. Tubach F, Dougados M, Falissard B, Baron G, Logeart I, Ravaud P. Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:526 -30.
  15. Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ 2006;332:1080.
  16. Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient re- ported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4: 69.
  17. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Beaton D, Boers M, Bombardier C, Fel- son DT, et al. Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome mea- sures in rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1188 -93.
  18. Tubach F, Wells GA, Ravaud P, Dougados M. Minimal clini- cally important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues. J Rheumatol 2005;32:2025-9.
  19. Kvamme M, Kristiansen I, Lie E, Kvien T. Identification of cutpoints for acceptable health status and important improve- ment in patient-reported outcomes, in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2009;37:26 -31.
  20. Tubach F, Pham T, Skomsvoll JF, Mikkelsen K, Bjorneboe O, Ravaud P, et al. Stability of the patient acceptable symptom- atic state over time in outcome criteria in ankylosing spondy- litis. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:960 -3.
  21. Ten Klooster PM, Drossaers-Bakker KW, Taal E, van de Laar MA. Patient-perceived satisfactory improvement (PPSI): in- terpreting meaningful change in pain from the patient's per- spective. Pain 2006;121:151-7.
  22. Dougados M, Luo M, Maksymowych W, Chmiel J, Chen N, Wong R, et al. Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state as an outcome measure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: data from a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:553-60.
  23. Maksymowych W, Gooch K, Dougados M, Wong R, Chen N, Kupper H, et al. Thresholds of patient-reported outcomes that define the patient acceptable symptom state in ankylosing spondylitis vary over time and by treatment and patient char- acteristics. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010;62:826 -34.
  24. Maksymowych WP, Richardson R, Mallon C, van der Heijde D, Boonen A. Evaluation and validation of the patient accept- able symptom state (PASS) in patients with ankylosing spon- dylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:133-9.
  25. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, McShane DJ, Fries JF, Cooper NS, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid ar- thritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315-24.
  26. Van der Linden S, Valkenburg HA, Cats A. Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis: a proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1984; 27:361-8.
  27. Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, Bloch D, Borenstein D, Brandt K, et al. The American College of Rheumatology cri- teria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hand. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:1601-10.
  28. Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, Bloch D, Borenstein D, Brandt K, et al. The American College of Rheumatology cri- teria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum 1991;34:505-14.
  29. Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K, et al. Development of criteria for the classification and report- ing of osteoarthritis: classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheum 1986;29:1039 -49.
  30. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:137- 45.
  31. Garrett S, Jenkinson T, Kennedy LG, Whitelock H, Gaisford P, Calin A. A new approach to defining disease status in anky- losing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21:2286 -91.
  32. Calin A, Garrett S, Whitelock H, Kennedy LG, O'Hea J, Mal- lorie P, et al. A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the development of the Bath Anky- losing Spondylitis Functional Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21: 2281-5.
  33. Kelli DA, Joanne MJ, Jordan BR, Virginia BK. Validity, factor structure, and clinical relevance of the AUSCAN osteoarthri- tis hand index. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:551-6.
  34. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthitis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1995;15:1833-40.
  35. Wells G, Anderson J, Beaton D, Bellamy N, Boers M, Bombar- dier C, et al. Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. J Rheuma- tol 2001;28:452-4.
  36. Wells G, Boers M, Shea B, Anderson J, Felson D, Johnson K, et al. MCID/low disease activity state workshop: low disease activity state in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003;30: 1110 -1.
  37. Tubach F, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. The variability in MCII and PASS estimates did not have an impact on treatment effect estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:725-8.
  38. Sprangers MA, de Regt EB, Andries F, van Agt HM, Bijl RV, de Boer JB, et al. Which chronic conditions are associated with better or poorer quality of life? J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:895- 907.
  39. Wells G, Anderson J, Boers M, Felson D, Heiberg T, Hewlett S, et al. MCID/low disease activity state workshop: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. J Rheumatol 2003;30: 1115-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Martin‐Mola, E., Awada, H., Bellamy, N., Bombardier, C., Felson, D. T., Hajjaj‐Hassouni, N., Hochberg, M., Logeart, I., Matucci‐Cerinic, M., van de Laar, M., van der Heijde, D., & Dougados, M.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • MSD (France) (FR)
  • University of Florence (IT)
  • Hôpital Cochin (FR)
Venue
Arthritis Care & Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-10-27
Volume
64
Issue
11
Pages
1699-1707
ISSN
  • 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-464X
  • 2151-4658
OpenAlex
W2040105893
Cited by
416
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
11.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Arthritis Care & Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Spondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Keywords
patient acceptable symptom state, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, knee osteoarthritis, pain, functional disability, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Back Pain, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Rheumatic Diseases, Severity of Illness Index, Spondylitis, Ankylosing, Osteoarthritis, Hip, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Internationality, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review