Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Dept. 7811, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark; Dept of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
University Hospitals' Centre for Health Research (UCSF), Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Sep;101:87-106.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007. Epub 2018 May 21.
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.
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.
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 I = 99% and relative MCID I = 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.
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.
最小临床重要差异(MCID)用于解释治疗效果的相关性,例如在制定临床指南、评估试验结果或规划样本量时。目前在慢性疼痛中尚无合适的 MCID 共识,并且对于导致差异的上下文因素知之甚少。
这是一项系统评价。我们检索了 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane Library。符合条件的研究根据一维疼痛量表、患者报告的感知改善转移量表以及均值变化分析(最小改善患者的疼痛均值差异)或阈值分析(与最佳灵敏度和特异性相关的疼痛减轻,以识别最小改善患者)来确定慢性疼痛的 MCID。由于存在较大的异质性,主要结果以描述性总结呈现,并使用荟萃分析进行量化,通过亚组分析和元回归进行探索。
我们纳入了 66 项研究(31254 名患者)。使用均值变化方法的研究中,MCID 的中位数绝对值为 23mm(0-100mm 量表,四分位距 [IQR] 12-39),MCID 的中位数相对值为 34%(IQR 22-45)。在这两种情况下,异质性均非常高:绝对 MCID I=99%,相对 MCID I=96%。使用阈值方法的研究中也存在很大差异:MCID 的中位数绝对值为 20mm(IQR 15-30),MCID 的中位数相对值为 32%(IQR 15-41)。绝对 MCID 与基线疼痛密切相关,可解释约三分之二的差异,与最小疼痛缓解的操作定义和临床状况的相关性稍差。共评估了 15 个临床和方法学因素,作为 MCID 变化的可能原因。
慢性疼痛缓解的 MCID 差异很大。基线疼痛与绝对 MCID 密切相关,但与相对 MCID 无关。MCID 也受到相关疼痛缓解的操作定义和可能的临床状况的较小程度影响。在将效应大小分类为临床重要或微不足道时,需要明确和认真地考虑 MCID 的选择。