Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 10/2015

Open Access 01-10-2015 | Clinical Research

The Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation Score for Patients With Distal Radius Fractures

Authors: Monique M. J. Walenkamp, MD, MSCE, Robert-Jan de Muinck Keizer, MD, J. Carel Goslings, MD, PhD, Lara M. Vos, MD, Melvin P. Rosenwasser, MD, Niels W. L. Schep, MD, PhD, MSCE

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 10/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) is a commonly used instrument in upper extremity surgery and in research. However, to recognize a treatment effect expressed as a change in PRWE, it is important to be aware of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and the minimum detectable change (MDC). The MCID of an outcome tool like the PRWE is defined as the smallest change in a score that is likely to be appreciated by a patient as an important change, while the MDC is defined as the smallest amount of change that can be detected by an outcome measure. A numerical change in score that is less than the MCID, even when statistically significant, does not represent a true clinically relevant change. To our knowledge, the MCID and MDC of the PRWE have not been determined in patients with distal radius fractures.

Questions/Purposes

We asked: (1) What is the MCID of the PRWE score for patients with distal radius fractures? (2) What is the MDC of the PRWE?

Methods

Our prospective cohort study included 102 patients with a distal radius fracture and a median age of 59 years (interquartile range [IQR], 48–66 years). All patients completed the PRWE questionnaire during each of two separate visits. At the second visit, patients were asked to indicate the degree of clinical change they appreciated since the previous visit. Accordingly, patients were categorized in two groups: (1) minimally improved or (2) no change. The groups were used to anchor the changes observed in the PRWE score to patients’ perspectives of what was clinically important. We determined the MCID using an anchor-based receiver operator characteristic method. In this context, the change in the PRWE score was considered a diagnostic test, and the anchor (minimally improved or no change as noted by the patients from visit to visit) was the gold standard. The optimal receiver operator characteristic cutoff point calculated with the Youden index reflected the value of the MCID.

Results

In our study, the MCID of the PRWE was 11.5 points. The area under the curve was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37–0.70) for the pain subscale and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57−0.85) for the function subscale. We determined the MDC to be 11.0 points.

Conclusions

We determined the MCID of the PRWE score for patients with distal radius fractures using the anchor-based approach and verified that the MDC of the PRWE was sufficiently small to detect our MCID.

Clinical Relevance

We recommend using an improvement on the PRWE of more than 11.5 points as the smallest clinically relevant difference when evaluating the effects of treatments and when performing sample-size calculations on studies of distal radius fractures.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–114.CrossRefPubMed Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–114.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG, Wells G, Boers M, Strand V, Shea B. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology: minimal clinically important difference. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:400–405.PubMed Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG, Wells G, Boers M, Strand V, Shea B. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology: minimal clinically important difference. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:400–405.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Beerekamp MS, Ubbink DT, Maas M, Luitse JS, Kloen P, Blokhuis TJ, Segers MJ, Marmor M, Schep NW, Dijkgraaf MG, Goslings JC; project group of the EF3X-trial. Fracture surgery of the extremities with the intra-operative use of 3D-RX: q randomized multicenter trial (EF3X-trial). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:151.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Beerekamp MS, Ubbink DT, Maas M, Luitse JS, Kloen P, Blokhuis TJ, Segers MJ, Marmor M, Schep NW, Dijkgraaf MG, Goslings JC; project group of the EF3X-trial. Fracture surgery of the extremities with the intra-operative use of 3D-RX: q randomized multicenter trial (EF3X-trial). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:151.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407.CrossRefPubMed Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:131–142.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:131–142.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Gupta S, Halai M, Al-Maiyah M, Muller S. Which measure should be used to assess the patient’s functional outcome after distal radius fracture? Acta Orthop Belg. 2014;80:116–118.PubMed Gupta S, Halai M, Al-Maiyah M, Muller S. Which measure should be used to assess the patient’s functional outcome after distal radius fracture? Acta Orthop Belg. 2014;80:116–118.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371–383.CrossRefPubMed Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371–383.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.CrossRefPubMed Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17:163–170.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17:163–170.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Kim JK, Park ES. Comparative responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences for idiopathic ulnar impaction syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:1406–1411.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Kim JK, Park ES. Comparative responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences for idiopathic ulnar impaction syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:1406–1411.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
15.
go back to reference MacDermid JC, Turgeon T, Richards RS, Beadle M, Roth JH. Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: a reliable and valid measurement tool. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:577–586.CrossRefPubMed MacDermid JC, Turgeon T, Richards RS, Beadle M, Roth JH. Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: a reliable and valid measurement tool. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:577–586.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24:69–71.PubMedCentralPubMed Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24:69–71.PubMedCentralPubMed
17.
go back to reference Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J. The Comprehensive Classification of Fractures of Long Bones. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1990.CrossRef Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J. The Comprehensive Classification of Fractures of Long Bones. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1990.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582–592.PubMed Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582–592.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–109.CrossRefPubMed Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–109.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1008–1018.CrossRefPubMed Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1008–1018.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Smith MV, Calfee RP, Baumgarten KM, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:277–285.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Smith MV, Calfee RP, Baumgarten KM, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:277–285.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, Ketchersid J, Calfee RP. Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38:641–649.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, Ketchersid J, Calfee RP. Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38:641–649.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1186–1196.PubMed Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1186–1196.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:296–303.CrossRefPubMed Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:296–303.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Walenkamp MM, Goslings JC, Beumer A, Haverlag R, Leenhouts PA, Verleisdonk EJ, Liem RS, Sintenie JB, Bronkhorst MW, Winkelhagen J, Schep NW. Surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with type A distal radius fractures: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:90.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Walenkamp MM, Goslings JC, Beumer A, Haverlag R, Leenhouts PA, Verleisdonk EJ, Liem RS, Sintenie JB, Bronkhorst MW, Winkelhagen J, Schep NW. Surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with type A distal radius fractures: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:90.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther. 2011;91:675–688.CrossRefPubMed Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther. 2011;91:675–688.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Wright JG. The minimal important difference: who’s to say what is important? J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1221–1222.CrossRefPubMed Wright JG. The minimal important difference: who’s to say what is important? J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1221–1222.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation Score for Patients With Distal Radius Fractures
Authors
Monique M. J. Walenkamp, MD, MSCE
Robert-Jan de Muinck Keizer, MD
J. Carel Goslings, MD, PhD
Lara M. Vos, MD
Melvin P. Rosenwasser, MD
Niels W. L. Schep, MD, PhD, MSCE
Publication date
01-10-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 10/2015
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4376-9

Other articles of this Issue 10/2015

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 10/2015 Go to the issue