The Minimum Important Change of the Patient Evaluation Measure for patients recovering from a finger fracture or joint injury was estimated to aid the design of future trials. Data from the Patient Outcomes for Finger Fractures and Joint Injuries prospective cohort study were used. Sixty participants were included. Patients were given the Patient Evaluation Measure questionnaire at baseline and at 6, 12 and 24 weeks with corresponding anchor questions. The Minimum Important Change values for the Patient Evaluation Measure at 24 weeks was between 12 and 17 depending on the statistical estimation method used. Although some variation existed across differing time-points, the range was broadly consistent. The Minimal Detectable Change was estimated as between 9 and 11.
BeatonD.Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med Care. 2003,
41: 593–6.
2.
BeatonDBoersMWellsG.Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002,
14: 109–14.
3.
CookC.Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther. 2008,
16: E82–3.
4.
CopayASubachBGlassmanSPollyDSchulerT.Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007,
7: 541–6.
5.
CoughlinT. Physiotherapy interventions & assessment of outcomes in distal radius fractures. PhD thesis. The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, 2018.
6.
DavisTTanWHarrisonE, et al.
A randomised feasibility trial comparing needle fasciotomy with limited fasciectomy treatment for Dupuytren’s contractures. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020,
6: 7. doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0546-y.
7.
de VetHOsteloRTerweeC, et al.
Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007,
16: 131–42.
8.
DiasJArundelCTharmanathanP, et al.
Dupuytren’s interventions surgery versus collagenase (DISC) trial: study protocol for a pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2021,
22: 671. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05595-w.
9.
HarrisonSOgollahRHollingworthW, et al.
Needle fasciotomy versus limited fasciectomy for the treatment of Dupuytren’s contractures of the fingers (Hand-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2024,
25: 398. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08003-1.
10.
HowellsLRatibSChalmersJBradshawLThomasK.How should minimally important change scores for the patient-oriented eczema measure be interpreted? A validation using varied methods. Br J Dermatol. 2018,
178: 1135–42.
11.
KamperSMaherCMackayG.Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009,
17: 163–70.
12.
McCrearyDSandbergBBohnDParikhHCunninghamB.Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: is one minimum clinically important difference really enough?Hand (NY). 2018,
15: 360–4.
13.
MousoulisCKarantanaATrickettRThomasKLeightonP.‘It’s just a finger isn’t it …’: patients’ perspectives of recovery following finger fractures and participation in surgical trials – a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2023,
13: e065185.
14.
MousoulisCThomasKLeightonPDeshmukhSGrindlayDKarantanaA.Treatment interventions for hand fractures and joint injuries: a scoping review of randomized controlled trials. J Hand Surg Eur. 2020,
45: 111–8.
15.
National Institute for Health and Care Research. POINT: A multi-centre randomised trial of surgery versus non-surgical splint treatment for proximal phalanx shaft finger fractures in adults. 2019. https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR127292 (accessed 8 December 2024).
16.
National Institute for Health and Care Research. A randomised trial to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of repairing flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) alone versus repair of both FDP and flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) for treatment of complete zone 2 flexor tendon injuries: the Flexor Repair and Rehabilitation (FLARE) trial. 2022. https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133784 (accessed 8 December 2024).
17.
NormanGSloanJWyrwichK.Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003,
41: 582–92.
18.
RevickiDHaysRCellaDSloanJ.Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008,
61: 102–9.
19.
TerluinBEekhoutITerweeCde VetH.Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015,
68: 1388–96.
20.
TerweeCRoordaLKnolDDe BoerMDe VetH.Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009,
62: 1062–7.
21.
TerweeCRoordaLDekkerJ, et al.
Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010,
63: 524–34.
22.
TerweeCPeipertJChapmanR, et al.
Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures. Qual Life Res. 2021,
30: 2729–54.
23.
von KieseritzkyJNordstromJArnerM.Reoperations and postoperative complications after osteosynthesis of phalangeal fractures: a retrospective cohort study. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017,
51: 458–62.
24.
WalenkampMde Muinck KeizerRGoslingsJVosLRosenwasserMSchepN.The minimum clinically important difference of the patient-rated wrist evaluation score for patients with distal radius fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015,
473: 3235–41.
25.
WrightAHannonJHegedusEKavchakA.Climimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimally clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther2012,
20: 160–6.
