Minimum Clinically Important Difference for Nonsurgical Interventions for Spinal Diseases: Choosing the Appropriate Values for an Integrative Medical Approach
Ye‐Seul Lee, Seong Min Lee, Yoon Jae Lee, In‐Hyuk Ha
Abstract
The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) plays a crucial role in the design and interpretation of clinical trials, as it helps in distinguishing between statistically significant and clinically meaningful outcomes. This scoping review aims to collate and appraise the current research concerning the validation of MCIDs for surgical and nonsurgical measures for spine disorders. Two databases of MEDLINE (PubMed and EMBASE) were searched. There were 1,590 studies retrieved and 79 were selected as eligible for review. Measurement tools such as the Oswestry Disability Index, Neck Disability Index, Numeric Rating Scale, and Visual Analogue Scale were assessed by regions and interventions. A total of 24 studies identified MCIDs on nonsurgical interventions, and 55 studies identified MCIDs on surgical interventions. The range of MCIDs varied greatly depending on study population, specific interventions, calculation methods, and outcomes. This scoping review emphasizes the complexity and variability in determining MCIDs for musculoskeletal or neurodegenerative spinal diseases, influenced by several factors including the intervention type, measurement tool, patient characteristics, and disease severity. Given the wide range of reported MCIDs, it is crucial to consider the specific context when interpreting these values in clinical and research settings. To select an appropriate MCID value for comparison in a clinical trial, careful consideration of the patient group, intervention, assessment tools, and primary outcomes is necessary to ensure that the chosen MCID aligns with the research question at hand.