Cited by 80Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

It is good to feel better, but better to feel good: whether a patient finds treatment ‘successful’ or not depends on the questions researchers ask

Roos, Ewa M, Boyle, Eleanor, Frobell, Richard B, Lohmander, L Stefan, Ingelsrud, Lina Holm·2019·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Introduction: In sports physiotherapy, medicine and orthopaedic randomised controlled trials (RCT), the investigators (and readers) focus on the difference between groups in change scores from baseline to follow-up. Mean score changes are difficult to interpret (‘is an improvement of 20 units good?’), and follow-up scores may be more meaningful. We investigated how applying three different responder criteria to change and follow-up scores would affect the ‘outcome’ of RCTs. Responder criteria refers to participants’ perceptions of how the intervention affected them. Methods: We applied three different criteria—minimal important change (MIC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and treatment failure (TF)—to the aggregate Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS 4) and the five KOOS subscales, the primary and secondary outcomes of the KANON trial (ISRCTN84752559). This trial included young active adults with an acute ACL injury and compared two treatment strategies: exercise therapy plus early reconstructive surgery, and exercise therapy plus delayed reconstructive surgery, if needed. Results: MIC: At 2 years, more than 90% in the two treatment arms reported themselves to be minimally but importantly improved for the primary outcome KOOS 4. PASS: About 50% of participants in both treatment arms reported their KOOS 4 follow-up scores to be satisfactory. TF: Almost 10% of participants in both treatment arms found their outcomes so unsatisfactory that they thought their treatment had failed. There were no statistically significant or meaningful differences between treatment arms using these criteria. Conclusion: We applied change criteria as well as cross-sectional follow-up criteria to interpret trial outcomes with more clinical focus. We suggest researchers apply MIC, PASS and TF thresholds to enhance interpretation of KOOS and other patient-reported scores. The findings from this study can improve shared decision-making processes for people with an acute ACL injury.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100260

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cosmetics sector is changing to promote holistic well-being by fusing visual appeal with real health advantages.

    “When taken as a whole, these instances show how the cosmetics sector is changing to promote holistic well-being by fusing visual appeal with real health advantages.”

    From AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TRENDS IN THE COSMETICS INDUSTRY (2025) · cites this paper as [6]

  • Applying cosmetics improves self-esteem and lowers anxiety in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

    “Makeup treatment has also been used with cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and it has been shown that applying cosmetics improves self-esteem and lowers anxiety [6].”

    From AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TRENDS IN THE COSMETICS INDUSTRY (2025) · cites this paper as [6]

  • 60% of people with skin disorders said that using cosmetics customized for their needs increased their confidence, according to a 2018 British Skin Foundation survey.

    “60% of people with skin disorders said that using cosmetics that were customized for their needs increased their confidence, according to a 2018 British Skin Foundation survey.”

    From AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TRENDS IN THE COSMETICS INDUSTRY (2025) · cites this paper as [6]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roos, E. M., Boyle, E., Frobell, R. B., Lohmander, L. S., & Ingelsrud, L. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Orthopaedics, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Faculty of Medicine, Lunds Universitet, Lund, Sweden
Corresponding author
Roos, Ewa M
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-05-09
Volume
53
Issue
23
Pages
1474-1478
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2944307193
Cited by
80
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
minimal important change, patient acceptable symptom state, treatment failure, patient-reported outcomes, KOOS, acute ACL injury, exercise therapy, shared decision-making, outcome interpretation
MeSH terms
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Adult, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

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