The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale
Abstract
Objectives. To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity that is most closely associated with improvement on the commonly used and validated measure of the patient's global impression of change (PGIC), and to estimate the dependency of the MCID on the baseline pain scores. Methods. This was a prospective cohort study assessing patient's pain intensity by the numerical rating scale (NRS) at baseline and at the 3 month follow‐up, and by a PGIC questionnaire. A one unit difference at the lowest end of the PGIC (“slightly better”) was used to define MCID as it reflects the minimum and lowest degree of improvement that could be detected. In addition we also calculated the NRS changes best associated with “much better” (two units). In order to characterize the association between specific NRS change scores (raw or percent) and clinically important improvement, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method. PGIC was used as an external criterion to distinguish between improved or non‐improved patients. Results. 825 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (233 with osteoarthritis of the knee, 86 with osteoarthritis of the hip, 133 with osteoarthritis of the hand, 290 with rheumatoid arthritis and 83 with ankylosing spondylitis) were followed up. A consistent relationship between the change in NRS and the PGIC was observed. On average, a reduction of one point or a reduction of 15.0% in the NRS represented a MCID for the patient. A NRS change score of −2.0 and a percent change score of −33.0% were best associated with the concept of “much better” improvement. For this reason these values can be considered as appropriate cut‐off points for this measure. The clinically significant changes in pain are non‐uniform along the entire NRS. Patients with a high baseline level of pain on the NRS (score of >7 cm), who experienced either a slight improvement or a higher level of response, had absolute raw and percent changes greater that did patients in the lower cohort (score of less than 4 cm). Conclusions. These results are consistent with the recently published findings generated by different methods and support the use of a “much better” improvement on the pain relief as a clinically important outcome. A further confirmation in other patient populations and different chronic pain syndromes will be needed.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Farrar, J. T., Young, J. P., LaMoreaux, L., Werth, J. L., & Poole, M. R. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9 · Cited by 5,808
Price, D. D., Bush, F. M., Long, S., & Harkins, S. W. (1994) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3 · Cited by 1,174
Comparison of fixed interval and visual analogue scales for rating chronic pain
Joyce, C. R. B., Zutshi, D. W., Hrubes, V., & Mason, R. M. (1975) · European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00562315 · Cited by 539
Cited by
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Wyrwich, K. W., Beaton, D., Cleeland, C. S., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Kerns, R. D., Ader, D. N., et al. (2008) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005 · Cited by 3,471
Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain
Hayden, J., van Tulder, M. W., Malmivaara, A., & Koes, B. W. (2005) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000335.pub2 · Cited by 879
Viscosupplementation for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Rutjes, A. W. S., Jüni, P., da Costa, B. R., Trelle, S., Nüesch, E., & Reichenbach, S. (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-3-201208070-00473 · Cited by 717
Meta-Analysis: Exercise Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Hayden, J. A., van Tulder, M. W., Malmivaara, A. V., & Koes, B. W. (2005) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-9-200505030-00013 · Cited by 611
Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study
Nuesch, E., Trelle, S., Reichenbach, S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Tschannen, B., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., & Juni, P. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c3515 · Cited by 559
“A SE of 0.1 is found in a large two arm trial with 200 randomised patients per group, which will have more than 95% power to detect an effect size of about −0.40 SD units, which corresponds to the median minimal clinically important difference found in recent trials in patients with osteoarthritis.”
MethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Salaffi, F., Stancati, A., Silvestri, C. A., Ciapetti, A., & Grassi, W.
- Venue
- European Journal of Pain
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 283-291
- ISSN
- 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2149
- OpenAlex
- W2016178396
- Cited by
- 1,724
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.09.004
- The paper
- Salaffi, F., Stancati, A., Silvestri, C. A., Ciapetti, A., & Grassi, W. (2004). Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. European Journal of Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.09.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.