Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 2004 Jun 18;64(1):29–33. doi: 10.1136/ard.2004.022905

Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement

F Tubach 1, P Ravaud 1, G Baron 1, B Falissard 1, I Logeart 1, N Bellamy 1, C Bombardier 1, D Felson 1, M Hochberg 1, D van der Heijde 1, M Dougados 1
PMCID: PMC1755212  PMID: 15208174

Abstract

Background: In clinical trials, at the group level, results are usually reported as mean and standard deviation of the change in score, which is not meaningful for most readers.

Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) of pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods: A prospective multicentre 4 week cohort study involving 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. Patients assessed their response to treatment on a five point Likert scale at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. The MCII was estimated in a subgroup of 814 patients (603 with knee OA, 211 with hip OA).

Results: For knee and hip OA, MCII for absolute (and relative) changes were, respectively, (a) –19.9 mm (–40.8%) and –15.3 mm (–32.0%) for pain; (b) –18.3 mm (–39.0%) and –15.2 mm (–32.6%) for patient's global assessment; (c) –9.1 (–26.0%) and –7.9 (–21.1%) for WOMAC function subscale score. The MCII is affected by the initial degree of severity of the symptoms but not by age, disease duration, or sex.

Conclusion: Using criteria such as MCII in clinical trials would provide meaningful information which would help in interpreting the results by expressing them as a proportion of improved patients.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (87.1 KB).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

 Aspects of the cumulative distribution function used to determine the MCII (changes in pain score in patients with knee OA; n = 265). Among patients considering their response to treatment as good on a five point Likert scale, 75% experienced a decrease in pain between baseline and final visit of >19.9 mm on a 0–100 mm VAS (a change between –100 mm and –19.9 mm).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

 Patients' assessment of their response to treatment.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Altman R., Alarcón G., Appelrouth D., Bloch D., Borenstein D., Brandt K., Brown C., Cooke T. D., Daniel W., Feldman D. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991 May;34(5):505–514. doi: 10.1002/art.1780340502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman R., Asch E., Bloch D., Bole G., Borenstein D., Brandt K., Christy W., Cooke T. D., Greenwald R., Hochberg M. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum. 1986 Aug;29(8):1039–1049. doi: 10.1002/art.1780290816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Altman R., Brandt K., Hochberg M., Moskowitz R., Bellamy N., Bloch D. A., Buckwalter J., Dougados M., Ehrlich G., Lequesne M. Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis: recommendations from a task force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society. Results from a workshop. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1996 Dec;4(4):217–243. doi: 10.1016/s1063-4584(05)80101-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaton D. E., Bombardier C., Katz J. N., Wright J. G. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;54(12):1204–1217. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00407-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaton Dorcas E. Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):593–596. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000064706.35861.B4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bellamy N., Carette S., Ford P. M., Kean W. F., le Riche N. G., Lussier A., Wells G. A., Campbell J. Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials--results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. J Rheumatol. 1992 Mar;19(3):451–457. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bellamy N., Kirwan J., Boers M., Brooks P., Strand V., Tugwell P., Altman R., Brandt K., Dougados M., Lequesne M. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol. 1997 Apr;24(4):799–802. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Crosby Ross D., Kolotkin Ronette L., Williams G. Rhys. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 May;56(5):395–407. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ehrich E. W., Davies G. M., Watson D. J., Bolognese J. A., Seidenberg B. C., Bellamy N. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000 Nov;27(11):2635–2641. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gold E. Richard. SARS genome patent: symptom or disease? Lancet. 2003 Jun 14;361(9374):2002–2003. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13674-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt G. H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Juniper E. F., Guyatt G. H., Willan A., Griffith L. E. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Jan;47(1):81–87. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Riddle D. L., Stratford P. W., Binkley J. M. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther. 1998 Nov;78(11):1197–1207. doi: 10.1093/ptj/78.11.1197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Roland M., Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983 Mar;8(2):141–144. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Schwartz Anna L., Meek Paula M., Nail Lillian M., Fargo James, Lundquist Margaret, Donofrio Melissa, Grainger Marilyn, Throckmorton Terry, Mateo Magdalena. Measurement of fatigue. determining minimally important clinical differences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Mar;55(3):239–244. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00469-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Streiner David L. Breaking up is hard to do: the heartbreak of dichotomizing continuous data. Can J Psychiatry. 2002 Apr;47(3):262–266. doi: 10.1177/070674370204700307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wright James G. Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple. Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):597–598. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200305000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES