5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Defining minimal clinically important differences in pain and disability outcomes of patients with chronic pain treated with spinal cord stimulation

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVE

          Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds for a limited number of outcome metrics were previously defined for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) at 6 months after spinal cord stimulation (SCS). This study aimed to further define MCID values for pain and disability outcomes. Additionally, the authors established 1-year MCID values for outcome measures with previously defined metrics commonly used to assess SCS efficacy.

          METHODS

          Preoperative and 1-year postoperative outcomes were collected from 114 patients who received SCS therapy for FBSS, complex regional pain syndrome, and neuropathic pain. MCID values were established for the numerical rating scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Four established anchor-based methods were utilized to compute MCID values with two anchored questions: “Are you satisfied with SCS therapy?” and “Would you have SCS surgery again?” For each question, patients were categorized as responders if they answered “yes” or as nonresponders if they responded “no.” The methodologies utilized to compute MCID scores included the average change method, minimum detectable change approach, change difference calculation, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis has been shown to inform the accuracy at which the MCID value can distinguish responders from nonresponders and was analyzed for each instrument.

          RESULTS

          For the first time, ranges of MCID values after SCS were established for MPQ (1–2.3) and PCS (1.9–13.6). One-year MCID values were defined for all indications: NRS (range 0.9–2.7), ODI (3.5–6.9), and BDI (2–5.9). AUC values were significant for NRS (0.78, p < 0.001), ODI (0.71, p = 0.003), MPQ (0.74, p < 0.001), and PCS (0.77, p < 0.001), indicating notable accuracy for distinguishing satisfied patients.

          CONCLUSIONS

          This was the first study to successfully determine MCID values for two prominent instruments, MPQ and PCS, used to assess pain after SCS surgery. Additionally, previously established MCID values for ODI, BDI, and the visual analog scale for patients with FBSS at 6 months after treatment were explored at 12 months for the most common indications for SCS. These data may better inform physicians of patient response to and success with SCS therapy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations

          Misinterpretation and abuse of statistical tests, confidence intervals, and statistical power have been decried for decades, yet remain rampant. A key problem is that there are no interpretations of these concepts that are at once simple, intuitive, correct, and foolproof. Instead, correct use and interpretation of these statistics requires an attention to detail which seems to tax the patience of working scientists. This high cognitive demand has led to an epidemic of shortcut definitions and interpretations that are simply wrong, sometimes disastrously so—and yet these misinterpretations dominate much of the scientific literature. In light of this problem, we provide definitions and a discussion of basic statistics that are more general and critical than typically found in traditional introductory expositions. Our goal is to provide a resource for instructors, researchers, and consumers of statistics whose knowledge of statistical theory and technique may be limited but who wish to avoid and spot misinterpretations. We emphasize how violation of often unstated analysis protocols (such as selecting analyses for presentation based on the P values they produce) can lead to small P values even if the declared test hypothesis is correct, and can lead to large P values even if that hypothesis is incorrect. We then provide an explanatory list of 25 misinterpretations of P values, confidence intervals, and power. We conclude with guidelines for improving statistical interpretation and reporting.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

              The effectiveness of spinal surgery as a treatment option is currently evaluated through the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) represents the smallest improvement considered worthwhile by a patient. The concept of an MCID is offered as the new standard for determining effectiveness of a given treatment and describing patient satisfaction in reference to that treatment. Our goal is to review the various definitions of MCID and the methods available to determine MCID. The primary means of determining the MCID for a specific treatment are divided into anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Each method is further subdivided and examined in detail. The overall limitations of the MCID concept are first identified. The basic assumptions, statistical biases, and shortcomings of each method are examined in detail. Each method of determining the MCID has specific shortcomings. Three general limitations in the accurate determination of an MCID have been identified: the multiplicity of MCID determinations, the loss of the patient's perspective, and the relationship between pretreatment baseline and posttreatment change scores. An ideal means of determining the MCID for a given intervention is yet to be determined. It is possible to develop a useful method provided that the assumptions and methodology are initially declared. Our efforts toward the establishment of a MCID will rely on the establishment of specific external criteria based on the symptoms of the patient and treatment intervention being evaluated.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
                Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
                1547-5654
                June 2021
                June 2021
                : 1-8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Departments of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics, and
                [2 ]Neurosurgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
                Article
                10.3171/2020.11.SPINE201431
                33892477
                c5331c4f-5c7d-4e99-a1d7-75b0bf364b28
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article