Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
190,851 studies31 sourcesUpdated 31 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDAnesthesiology

Minimal Clinically Important Changes of Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Acute Postsurgical Pain

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential instruments for assessing postsurgical pain-related outcomes from the patient's perspective. The concept of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) aims to identify the smallest change in PROMs that is meaningful to patients. In this multicenter study, data were used to calculate MCIDs for several PROMs assessing pain intensity and physical function after surgery and to perform a sensitivity analysis. METHODS: Data from 2,661 patients undergoing sternotomy, total knee arthroplasty, breast surgery, or surgery related to endometriosis, recruited from 18 centers in 10 European countries, were included in the analysis. Eight PROMs were collected on days 1 and 3 after surgery, assessing pain intensity (at rest, average, worst, during movement, during physiotherapy) and physical function (in bed, during movement, during physiotherapy). MCIDs were calculated using a combination of distribution-based (30% of SD, standard error of the measurement) and anchor-based (calculating the absolute change between day 1 and day 3 for patients reporting "minimal improvement" or "minimal worsening" on 7-point global and specific impression of change scales) methods. RESULTS: The MCID estimates for pain intensity ranged from 1.2 (at rest) to 1.6 (during activity), while physical function was consistent between 1.5 (in bed) and 1.6 (during physiotherapy) on an 11-point scale. Sensitivity analyses revealed no significant difference in MCID estimates between symptom improvement and worsening for all PROMs. However, baseline pain influenced MCID estimates, with higher baseline pain leading to patients reporting higher changes as meaningful ( e.g. , for pain at rest, MCID mild pain 1.0, MCID severe pain 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found differences between MCID estimates for eight PROMs related to pain intensity and physical function. Baseline values appear to have a significant impact on what patients consider to be a minimal relevant change, which should be addressed in future studies.

Related

  1. Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Long-Term Prospective Validation of the AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma)
    Said Sadiqi MD, PhD, Charlotte Dandurand MD, MSc, FRCSC, Richard J. Bransford MD +6
    Global Spine JournalPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaDOAJ
  2. Identification of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for Childhood Autism Rating Scale Second Edition (CARS2) in children with ASD
    A. Vyshedskiy, L. E. Pavoski Poloni, A. Schmiedel Fucks +3
    medRxivPreprintCC BYFull textObstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsmedRxiv
  3. Tranexamic acid use and progression to clinically important bleeding in critically ill patients with non-clinically important non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective cohort study
    Ji Luo, Zheng Lei, Yuanjun Zhang +8
    Frontiers in medicinePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  4. Tiotropium and clinically important deterioration in mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post hoc win ratio analysis of the Tie-COPD study.
    Yinghui Jiang, Fan Wu, Junfeng Lin +7
    BMJ open respiratory researchPeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. Double‐Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Provides Superior Short‐to‐Midterm Rotational Stability But Not Clinically Important Functional Gains Over Single‐Bundle: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
    Manuel Alberto Gutierrez‐Moreno, Luis Eduardo Arámbula‐Torres, Ramon Alonso Prieto‐Baeza +3
    Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitationPeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
BibTeX
@article{vollert2026minimal,
  title = {{Minimal Clinically Important Changes of Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Acute Postsurgical Pain}},
  author = {Jan Vollert and Vasco M. Egert and Daniel Segelcke and Dominique Fletcher and Eija Kalso and Harriet Kemp and Patricia Lavand'Homme and Marcus Komann and Claudia Weinmann and Winfried Meissner and Esther M. Pogatzki-Zahn},
  journal = {Anesthesiology},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.1097/aln.0000000000005792},
  url = {https://hal.science/hal-05851899v1},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Minimal Clinically Important Changes of Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Acute Postsurgical Pain
AU  - Jan Vollert
AU  - Vasco M. Egert
AU  - Daniel Segelcke
AU  - Dominique Fletcher
AU  - Eija Kalso
AU  - Harriet Kemp
AU  - Patricia Lavand'Homme
AU  - Marcus Komann
AU  - Claudia Weinmann
AU  - Winfried Meissner
AU  - Esther M. Pogatzki-Zahn
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/04
JO  - Anesthesiology
DO  - 10.1097/aln.0000000000005792
UR  - https://hal.science/hal-05851899v1
AB  - BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential instruments for assessing postsurgical pain-related outcomes from the patient's perspective. The concept of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) aims to identify the smallest change in PROMs that is meaningful to patients. In this multicenter study, data were used to calculate MCIDs for several PROMs assessing pain intensity and physical function after surgery and to perform a sensitivity analysis. METHODS: Data from 2,661 patients undergoing sternotomy, total knee arthroplasty, breast surgery, or surgery related to endometriosis, recruited from 18 centers in 10 European countries, were included in the analysis. Eight PROMs were collected on days 1 and 3 after surgery, assessing pain intensity (at rest, average, worst, during movement, during physiotherapy) and physical function (in bed, during movement, during physiotherapy). MCIDs were calculated using a combination of distribution-based (30% of SD, standard error of the measurement) and anchor-based (calculating the absolute change between day 1 and day 3 for patients reporting "minimal improvement" or "minimal worsening" on 7-point global and specific impression of change scales) methods. RESULTS: The MCID estimates for pain intensity ranged from 1.2 (at rest) to 1.6 (during activity), while physical function was consistent between 1.5 (in bed) and 1.6 (during physiotherapy) on an 11-point scale. Sensitivity analyses revealed no significant difference in MCID estimates between symptom improvement and worsening for all PROMs. However, baseline pain influenced MCID estimates, with higher baseline pain leading to patients reporting higher changes as meaningful ( e.g. , for pain at rest, MCID mild pain 1.0, MCID severe pain 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found differences between MCID estimates for eight PROMs related to pain intensity and physical function. Baseline values appear to have a significant impact on what patients consider to be a minimal relevant change, which should be addressed in future studies.
SN  - 0003-3022
SN  - 1528-1175
ER  -