Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences of 3 Patient-Rated Outcomes Instruments

Open access
Sorensen, Amelia A., Howard, Daniel, Tan, Wen Hui, Ketchersid, Jeffrey, Calfee, Ryan P.·2013·The Journal of Hand Surgery

Abstract

Purpose Patient-rated instruments are increasingly used to measure orthopaedic outcomes. However, the clinical relevance of modest score changes on such instruments is often unclear. This study was designed to define the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), QuickDASH, and Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) for atraumatic conditions of the hand, wrist, and forearm. Methods One hundred two patients undergoing nonoperative treatment for isolated tendonitis, arthritis, or nerve compression syndromes from the forearm to the hand were analyzed prospectively. Patients completed the DASH, Quick DASH (subset of DASH), and PRWE at enrollment, 2 weeks (n=78 used in analysis), and 4 weeks (n=24 used in analysis) after initiating treatment by telephone. Patients reporting clinical improvement each contributed a single data point categorized as no change (n=41), minimal improvement (n=30), or marked improvement (n=31) via a validated anchor-based approach. The minimal clinically important difference was calculated as the mean change score for each outcome measure in the minimal improvement group. Results The MCID (95%CI) for the DASH was 10 (5-15). The MCID for the Quick DASH was 14 (9-20). The MCID was 14 (8-20) for the PRWE. MCID values were significantly different from changes in these outcome measures at times of either no change or marked improvement. MCID values positively correlated with baseline outcome measure scores to a greater degree than final outcome measure scores. Discussion Longitudinal changes on the DASH of 10 points, the Quick DASH of 14 points, and the PRWE of 14 points represent minimal clinically important changes. We recommend application of these MCID values for group-level analysis when conducting research and interpreting data examining groups of patients as opposed to assessing individual patients. These MCID values may provide a basis for sample size calculations for future investigation using these common patient-rated outcome measures. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic III

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.jhsa.2012.12.032

Cites

19 of 19 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 19 references

Cited by

See all 466

Metadata

Authors
Sorensen, A. A., Howard, D., Tan, W. H., Ketchersid, J., & Calfee, R. P.
Venue
The Journal of Hand Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
641-649
ISSN
0363-5023 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2083609360
Cited by
466
References
19
FWCI
18.26
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: Minimal Clinically Important Differences of 3 Patient-Rated Outcomes Instruments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032
The paper
Sorensen, A. A., Howard, D., Tan, W. H., Ketchersid, J., & Calfee, R. P. (2013). Minimal Clinically Important Differences of 3 Patient-Rated Outcomes Instruments. The Journal of Hand Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032

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.