Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

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 access
Olsen, Mette Frahm, Bjerre, Eik, Hansen, Maria Damkjær, Tendal, Britta, Hilden, Jørgen, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn·2018·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 93 references

Cited by

See all 282

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.