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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6 · Cited by 4,982
Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire
JUNIPER, E. (1994) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1 · Cited by 1,824
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
Measuring the whole or the parts?
Beaton, D. E., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., Wright, J. G., Tarasuk, V., & Bombardier, C. (2001) · Journal of Hand Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0894-1130(01)80043-0 · Cited by 1,306
Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Baron, G., Falissard, B., Logeart, I., Bellamy, N., Bombardier, C., Felson, D., Hochberg, M., van der Heijde, D., et al. (2005) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard.2004.022905 · Cited by 1,094
A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods
King, M. T. (2011) · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · doi:10.1586/erp.11.9 · Cited by 646
Mintken, P. E., Glynn, P., & Cleland, J. A. (2009) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.015 · Cited by 600
Norman, G. R., Stratford, P., & Regehr, G. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00097-8 · Cited by 524
Schmitt, J. S., & Di Fabio, R. P. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.007 · Cited by 487
Tashjian, R. Z., Deloach, J., Green, A., Porucznik, C. A., & Powell, A. P. (2010) · The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.h.01296 · Cited by 355
Cited by
Franchignoni, F., Vercelli, S., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Bravini, E., & Ferriero, G. (2014) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4893 · Cited by 924
Abbreviated psychologic questionnaires are valid in patients with hand conditions
Bot, A. G. J., Becker, S. J. E., van Dijk, N. C., Ring, D., & Vranceanu, A.-M. (2013) · Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research · doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3213-2 · Cited by 55
Artificial or Augmented Authorship? A Conversation with a Chatbot on Base of Thumb Arthritis
Seth, I., Sinkjær Kenney, P., Bulloch, G., Hunter-Smith, D. J., Bo Thomsen, J., & Rozen, W. M. (2023) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open · doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000004999 · Cited by 26
Roh, Y. H., Noh, J. H., Oh, J. H., Gong, H. S., & Baek, G. H. (2015) · Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research · doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4269-y · Cited by 22
RetractedRandall, D. J., Zhang, Y., Harris, A. P., Qiu, Y., Li, H., Stephens, A. R., & Kazmers, N. H. (2021) · JSES International · doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2021.06.005 · Cited by 15
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.