Skip to main content

Table 2 MCID, PASS and MDC ranges by PROM and method

From: Defining a successful total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of metrics of clinically important changes

PROM

MCID range

PASS range

MDC range

Distribution

Anchor

Distribution

Anchor

Distribution

KOOS

6.0–15.81

7.0–25.02

 

66.0–84.5, 66.0–84.5, 63.0–84.0 (1 year); 66.0–87.5, 66.0–90.5, 64.5–87.0 (3 year)

 

KOOS, JR

6.0–8.73

14.0–20.84

  

7.0–11.01

WOMAC

 

8.0–36.05

Threshold 22a

11.0–27.02

OKS

5.06

4.3–5.07

   

PROMIS

3.3–5.08

    

SF-12

5.0–5.49

1.5–4.810

  

8.9–13.83

SF-36

5.0–10.011

   

35.0–94.0 (individual); 5.0–14.0 (group)4

ICOAP

 

23.712

   

EQ-VAS

   

83.0, 71.0, 70.0 (1 year); 90.5, 74.5, 77.5 (3 year)

 

EQ-5D-3L

   

0.80, 0.75, 0.80 (1 year); 0.80, 0.79, 0.80 (3 year)

 

NRS

   

1.8, 2.2, 1.5 (1 year); 1.8, 1.2, 1.0 (3 year)

 
  1. MCID ranges by PROM using both methods: 1. Berliner 2017, Blevins 2019, Kuo 2020, Lyman 2018; 2. Goodman 2020, Harris 2021, Kuo 2020, Lyman 2018; 3. Kuo 2020, Lyman 2018; 4. Harris 2021, Kuo 2020, Lyman 2018; 5. Chesworth 2008 (CID), Clement 2018; 6. Razak 2016; 7. Clement 2013; 8. Kagan 2018, Lawrie 2020; 9. Berliner 2017, Blevins 2019; 10. Clement 2013 (includes pain and function), Clement 2019; 11. Razak 2016 (PCS), Fontana 2019; 12. Sayers 2017 (chronic pain). PASS ranges by PROM using primarily anchor-based methods: Connelly 2019, reported by 80% specificity, Youden index, and the 75th percentile
  2. MDC ranges by PROM using only distribution methods: 1. Lyman 2018 (MDC-80, 90, 95); 2. Clement 2018 (MDC-95); 3. Clement 2019 (MDC-90); 4. Busija 2008 (MDC-95). MDCgroup = MDCindividual/)/√n.; Where MDC = z-score \(\times\) SEM \(\times\) √2. SEM = SD \(\times\) √(1–reliability). SEM standard error measurement, SD standard deviation
  3. aMaxwell 2013—back-calculated