1
|
Navascues-Cornago M, Guthrie S, Morgan PB, Woods J. Determination of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for Ocular Subjective Responses. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2024; 13:28. [PMID: 39150716 PMCID: PMC11343006 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.13.8.28] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2024] [Accepted: 07/16/2024] [Indexed: 08/17/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for contact lens (CL)-related subjective responses and explore whether MCID values differ between subjective responses and study designs. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of data from seven one-week bilateral crossover studies and 14 one-day contralateral CL studies. For comfort, dryness, vision, or ease of insertion, participants rated on a 0-100 visual analogue scale (VAS) and indicated lens preference on a five-point Likert scale featuring strong, slight, and no preferences. For each criterion, four MCID estimates were calculated and averaged: mean VAS score difference for "slight preference," lower limit of 95% confidence interval VAS score difference for "slight preference," difference in mean VAS score difference between "slight" and "no preference" and 0.5 standard deviation of VAS scores. Results The four calculation methods generated a small range of MCID values. For bilateral studies, the averaged MCID was 7.2 (range 5.4-8.8) for comfort, 8.1 (5.2-10.6) for dryness, 7.1 (5.5-9.3) for vision and 7.6 (6.0-10.5) for ease of insertion. For contralateral studies, the averaged MCID was 6.9 (6.1-7.6) for comfort at insertion and 7.5 (6.8-8.2) for end-of-day comfort. Conclusions This work demonstrated very similar MCID values across subjective responses and study designs, in a population of habitual soft CL wearers. In all cases, MCID values were on average seven units on a 0 to 100 VAS. Translational Relevance This work provides MCID values which are important for interpreting ocular subjective responses and planning clinical studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Navascues-Cornago
- Eurolens Research, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Sarah Guthrie
- Centre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), School of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Philip B. Morgan
- Eurolens Research, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Jill Woods
- Centre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), School of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Klukowska AM, Vandertop WP, Schröder ML, Staartjes VE. Calculation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using different methodologies: case study and practical guide. EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL : OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN SPINE SOCIETY, THE EUROPEAN SPINAL DEFORMITY SOCIETY, AND THE EUROPEAN SECTION OF THE CERVICAL SPINE RESEARCH SOCIETY 2024:10.1007/s00586-024-08369-5. [PMID: 38940854 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-024-08369-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2024] [Revised: 05/17/2024] [Accepted: 06/10/2024] [Indexed: 06/29/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Establishing thresholds of change that are actually meaningful for the patient in an outcome measurement instrument is paramount. This concept is called the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). We summarize available MCID calculation methods relevant to spine surgery, and outline key considerations, followed by a step-by-step working example of how MCID can be calculated, using publicly available data, to enable the readers to follow the calculations themselves. METHODS Thirteen MCID calculations methods were summarized, including anchor-based methods, distribution-based methods, Reliable Change Index, 30% Reduction from Baseline, Social Comparison Approach and the Delphi method. All methods, except the latter two, were used to calculate MCID for improvement of Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) Symptom Severity of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Numeric Rating Scale for Leg Pain and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire Walking Ability domain were used as anchors. RESULTS The MCID for improvement of ZCQ Symptom Severity ranged from 0.8 to 5.1. On average, distribution-based methods yielded lower MCID values, than anchor-based methods. The percentage of patients who achieved the calculated MCID threshold ranged from 9.5% to 61.9%. CONCLUSIONS MCID calculations are encouraged in spinal research to evaluate treatment success. Anchor-based methods, relying on scales assessing patient preferences, continue to be the "gold-standard" with receiver operating characteristic curve approach being optimal. In their absence, the minimum detectable change approach is acceptable. The provided explanation and step-by-step example of MCID calculations with statistical code and publicly available data can act as guidance in planning future MCID calculation studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anita M Klukowska
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Clinical Hospital of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland
| | - W Peter Vandertop
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marc L Schröder
- Department of Neurosurgery, Park Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Victor E Staartjes
- Machine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Galardini L, Coppari A, Pellicciari L, Ugolini A, Piscitelli D, La Porta F, Bravini E, Vercelli S. Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Shortened Version of the DASH (QuickDASH) in People With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Phys Ther 2024; 104:pzae033. [PMID: 38438144 DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzae033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2023] [Revised: 09/15/2023] [Accepted: 03/02/2024] [Indexed: 03/06/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and its shortened version (ie, the QuickDASH). METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched up to July 2022. Studies on people with upper limb musculoskeletal disorders that calculated the MCID by anchor-based methods were included. Descriptive and quantitative synthesis was used for the MCID and the minimal detectable change with 90% confidence (MDC90). Fixed-effects models and random-effect models were used for the meta-analysis. I2 statistics was computed to assess heterogeneity. The methodological quality of studies was assessed with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist for measurement error and an adaptation of the checklist for the studies on MCID proposed by Bohannon and Glenney. RESULTS Twelve studies (1677 patients) were included, producing 17 MCID estimates ranging from 8.3 to 18.0 DASH points and 8.0 to 18.1 QuickDASH points. The pooled MCIDs were 11.00 DASH points (95% CI = 8.59-13.41; I2 = 0%) and 11.97 QuickDASH points (95% CI = 9.60-14.33; I2 = 0%). The pooled MDC90s were 9.04 DASH points (95% CI = 6.46-11.62; I2 = 0%) and 9.03 QuickDASH points (95% CI = 6.36-11.71; I2 = 18%). Great methodological heterogeneity in the calculation of the MCID was identified among the primary studies. CONCLUSION Reasonable MCID ranges of 12 to 14 DASH points and 12 to 15 QuickDASH points were established. The lower boundaries represent the first available measure above the pooled MDC90, and the upper limits represent the upper 95% CI of the pooled MCID. IMPACT Reasonable ranges for the MCID of 12 to 14 DASH points and 12 to 15 QuickDASH points were proposed. The lower boundaries represent the first available measure above the pooled MDC90, and the upper limits represent the upper 95% CI of the pooled MCID. Information regarding the interpretability of the 2 questionnaires was derived from very different methodologies, making it difficult to identify reliable thresholds. Now clinicians and researchers can rely on more credible data. The proposed MCIDs should be used to assess people with musculoskeletal disorders. Heterogeneity was found related particularly to the anchor levels used in the primary studies. To promote comparability of MCID values, shared rules defining the most appropriate types of anchoring will be needed in the near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorenzo Galardini
- Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Andrea Coppari
- Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Azienda Sanitaria Territoriale, Jesi, Ancona, Italy
| | | | | | - Daniele Piscitelli
- Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA
| | - Fabio La Porta
- IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Stefano Vercelli
- Rehabilitation Research Laboratory 2rLab, Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Manno, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Harris LK, Troelsen A, Terluin B, Gromov K, Ingelsrud LH. Minimal important change thresholds change over time after knee and hip arthroplasty. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 169:111316. [PMID: 38458544 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111316] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2023] [Revised: 02/27/2024] [Accepted: 02/29/2024] [Indexed: 03/10/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The minimal important change (MIC) reflects what patients, on average, consider the smallest improvement in a score that is important to them. MIC thresholds may vary across patient populations, interventions used, posttreatment time points and derivation methods. We determine and compare MIC thresholds for the Oxford Knee Score and Oxford Hip Score (OKS/OHS) at 3 months postoperatively to 12- and 24-month thresholds in patients undergoing knee or hip arthroplasty. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING This cohort study used data from patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), or total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a public hospital between February 2016 and February 2023. At 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively, patients responded to the OKS/OHS and a 7-point anchor question determining experienced changes in knee or hip pain and functional limitations. We used the adjusted predictive modeling method that accounts for the proportion improved and the reliability of the anchor question to determine MIC thresholds and their mean differences between time points. RESULTS Complete data were obtained from 695/957 (73%), 1179/1703 (69%), and 1080/1607 (67%) patients undergoing TKA, 474/610 (78%), 438/603 (73%), and 355/507 (70%) patients undergoing UKA, and 965/1315 (73%), 978/1409 (69%), and 1059/1536 (69%) patients undergoing THA at 3, 12, and 24 months, respectively. The median age ranged from 68 to 70 years and 55% to 60% were females. The proportions improved ranged between 83% and 95%. The OKS/OHS MIC thresholds were 0.1, 4.2, and 5.1 for TKA, 1.8, 5.6, and 3.4 for UKA, and 1.3, 6.1, and 6.0 for THA at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. The reliability ranged between 0.64 and 0.82, and the MIC values increased between three and 12 months but not between 12 and 24 months. CONCLUSION Any absence of deterioration in pain and function is considered important at 3 months after knee or hip arthroplasty. Increasing thresholds over time suggest patients raise their standards for what constitutes a minimal important improvement over the first postoperative year. Besides improving our understanding of patients' views on postoperative outcomes, these clinical thresholds may aid in interpreting registry-based treatment outcome evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lasse K Harris
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Anders Troelsen
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Berend Terluin
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC Location, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kirill Gromov
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Lina H Ingelsrud
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Blanchard BE, Johnson M, Campbell SB, Reed DE, Chen S, Heagerty PJ, Marx BP, Kaysen D, Fortney JC. Minimal important difference metrics and test-retest reliability of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 with a primary care sample. J Trauma Stress 2023; 36:1102-1114. [PMID: 37845820 PMCID: PMC10754254 DOI: 10.1002/jts.22975] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2023] [Revised: 09/02/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 10/18/2023]
Abstract
The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is a measure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity that is widely used for clinical and research purposes. Although previous work has examined metrics of minimal important difference (MID) of the PCL-5 in veteran samples, no work has identified PCL-5 MID metrics among adults in primary care in the United States. In this secondary analysis, data were evaluated from primary care patients (N = 971) who screened positive for PTSD and participated in a large clinical trial in federally qualified health centers in three U.S. states. Participants primarily self-identified as women (70.2%) and White (70.3%). We calculated test-retest reliability using clinic registry data and multiple distribution- and anchor-based metrics of MID using baseline and follow-up survey data. Test-retest reliability (Pearson's r, Spearman's ρ, intraclass correlation coefficient) ranged from adequate to excellent (.79-.94), with the shortest time lag demonstrating the highest reliability estimate. The MID for the PCL-5 was estimated using multiple approaches. Distribution-based approaches indicated an MID range of 8.5-12.5, and anchor-based approaches indicated an MID range of 9.8-11.7. Taken together, the MID metrics indicate that PCL-5 change scores of 9-12 likely reflect real change in PTSD symptoms and indicate at least an MID for patients, whereas PCL-5 change scores of 5 or less likely are not reliable. These findings can help inform clinicians using the PCL-5 in similar populations to track patient responses to treatment and help researchers interpret PCL-5 score changes in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brittany E. Blanchard
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Morgan Johnson
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Sarah B. Campbell
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
- VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - David E. Reed
- Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Shiyu Chen
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Patrick J. Heagerty
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Brian P. Marx
- VA Boston Healthcare System, National Center for PTSD, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Debra Kaysen
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA
| | - John C. Fortney
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
- VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Wang Y, Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A, King MT, Terluin B, Terwee CB, Walsh M, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. A step-by-step approach for selecting an optimal minimal important difference. BMJ 2023; 381:e073822. [PMID: 37236647 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-073822] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Yuting Wang
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Tahira Devji
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Alonso Carrasco-Labra
- Department of Preventive and Restorative Sciences; Center for Integrative Global Oral Health, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Madeleine T King
- School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Berend Terluin
- Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre Amsterdam, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Methodology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Caroline B Terwee
- Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Methodology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Michael Walsh
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Toshi A Furukawa
- Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Gordon H Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Madden K. CORR Insights®: Discordance Abounds in Minimum Clinically Important Differences in THA: A Systematic Review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2023; 481:715-716. [PMID: 36735583 PMCID: PMC10013653 DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 01/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Kim Madden
- Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Research Institute of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Harris LK, Troelsen A, Terluin B, Gromov K, Overgaard S, Price A, Ingelsrud LH. Interpretation Threshold Values for the Oxford Hip Score in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty: Advancing Their Clinical Use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2023; 105:797-804. [PMID: 36947604 DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.22.01293] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcome measures such as the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) can capture patient-centered perspectives on outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The OHS assesses hip pain and functional limitations, but defining interpretation threshold values for the OHS is warranted so that numerical OHS values can be translated into whether patients have experienced clinically meaningful changes. Therefore, we determined the minimal important change (MIC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and treatment failure (TF) threshold values for the OHS at 12 and 24-month follow-up in patients undergoing THA. METHODS This cohort study used data from patients undergoing THA at 1 public hospital between July 2016 and April 2021. At 12 and 24 months postoperatively, patients provided responses for the OHS and for 3 anchor questions about whether they had experienced changes in hip pain and function, whether they considered their symptom state to be satisfactory, and if it was not satisfactory, whether they considered the treatment to have failed. The anchor-based adjusted predictive modeling method was used to determine interpretation threshold values. Baseline dependency was evaluated using a new item-split method. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to determine 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS Complete data were obtained for 706 (69%) of 1,027 and 728 (66%) of 1,101 patients at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. These patients had a median age of 70 years, and 55% to 56% were female. Adjusted OHS MIC values were 6.3 (CI, 4.6 to 8.1) and 5.2 (CI, 3.6 to 6.7), adjusted OHS PASS values were 30.6 (CI, 29.0 to 32.2) and 30.5 (CI, 29.3 to 31.8), and adjusted OHS TF values were 25.5 (CI, 22.9 to 27.7) and 27.0 (CI, 25.2 to 28.8) at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. MIC values were 5.4 (CI, 2.1 to 9.1) and 5.0 (CI, 1.9 to 8.7) higher at 12 and 24 months, respectively, in patients with a more severe preoperative state. CONCLUSIONS The established interpretation threshold values advance the interpretation and clinical use of the OHS, and may prove especially beneficial for registry-based evaluations of treatment quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lasse K Harris
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Anders Troelsen
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Berend Terluin
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC Location, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kirill Gromov
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Søren Overgaard
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Andrew Price
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
| | - Lina H Ingelsrud
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ackerman I. Waiting for orthopedic surgery - are we underestimating the impacts on people with advanced osteoarthritis? Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30:1545-1546. [PMID: 36063989 PMCID: PMC9458548 DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2022.08.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2022] [Revised: 08/22/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
|
10
|
Perspective on Riddle and Dumenci's 'Commentary on finding meaning in patient-reported outcome change scores: a seemingly unquenchable thirst for understanding'. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30:773-774. [PMID: 35358699 DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2022.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2022] [Accepted: 03/23/2022] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
|