The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies
Open accessAbstract
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 This is a 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 were quantified using meta-analyses and explored using subgroup analyses and metaregression. RESULTS We included 66 studies (31.254 patients). Median absolute MCID was 23 mm on a 0-100 mm scale (interquartile range [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% and 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.
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
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 · cited 2×
“It is largely overlooked that MCID estimated as a mean change in pain score will not apply to all individuals in the group, since their change scores are distributed around the mean [7].”
BackgroundOstelo, R. W. J. G., Deyo, R. A., Stratford, P., Waddell, G., Croft, P., Von Korff, M., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2008) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31815e3a10 · Cited by 2,009
Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare
Black, N. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f167 · Cited by 1,960 · cited 1×
“However, there is an increasing awareness of the relevance of patient-reported outcomes in general [12], and in pain assessment it seems particularly reasonable to anchor clinical importance to the patients’ subjective experience.”
BackgroundSalaffi, F., Stancati, A., Silvestri, C. A., Ciapetti, A., & Grassi, W. (2004) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.09.004 · Cited by 1,724
Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status Measures
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.4065/77.4.371 · Cited by 1,500
Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain
Childs, J. D., Piva, S. R., & Fritz, J. M. (2005) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 · Cited by 1,481
Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life
Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1 · Cited by 1,332
Copay, A. G., Glassman, S. D., Subach, B. R., Berven, S., Schuler, T. C., & Carreon, L. Y. (2008) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006 · Cited by 1,300
The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain
Hägg, O., Fritzell, P., & Nordwall, A. (2003) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0464-0 · Cited by 907
Cited by
Devji, T., Carrasco-Labra, A., Qasim, A., Phillips, M., Johnston, B. C., Devasenapathy, N., Zeraatkar, D., Bhatt, M., Jin, X., Brignardello-Petersen, R., et al. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m1714 · Cited by 259
Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT recommended considerations
Smith, S. M., Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., McDermott, M. P., Eccleston, C., Farrar, J. T., Rowbotham, M. C., Bhagwagar, Z., Burke, L. B., Cowan, P., et al. (2020) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001952 · Cited by 194
Siddall, B., Ram, A., Jones, M. D., Booth, J., Perriman, D., & Summers, S. J. (2022) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002308 · Cited by 174
Langguth, B., & De Ridder, D. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm12227117 · Cited by 44
“When assessment instruments are used for the investigation of therapeutic interventions, it is important to determine what the minimal change of the score of a given instrument is that reflects a clinically relevant or meaningful improvement [7].”
Responsiveness and minimal important change for the quick-DASH in patients with shoulder disorders
Budtz, C. R., Andersen, J. H., de Vos Andersen, N.-B., & Christiansen, D. H. (2018) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s12955-018-1052-2 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Olsen, M. F., Bjerre, E., Hansen, M. D., Tendal, B., Hilden, J., & Hróbjartsson, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 101
- Pages
- 87-106.e2
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2803671091
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 93
- FWCI
- 3.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007
- The paper
- Olsen, M. F., Bjerre, E., Hansen, M. D., Tendal, B., Hilden, J., & Hróbjartsson, A. (2018). Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007
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.