{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,18]],"date-time":"2026-09-18T22:26:15Z","timestamp":1789770375695,"version":"4.0.1"},"reference-count":50,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,20]],"date-time":"2025-01-20T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1737331200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,20]],"date-time":"2025-01-20T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1737331200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"University of Stavanger & Stavanger University Hospital"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Qual Life Res"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,4]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>Clinical cut-offs like minimum clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) increase the interpretability of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but cut-off estimates vary considerably, clouding a clear definition of a successful surgical outcome. We report estimates of MCII and PASS following hip- and knee arthroplasty using multiple methods and compare the different estimation methods.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>Elective hip or knee arthroplasty patients who underwent the regular pre- and postoperative assessments 2014\u20132018 were included. The generic EQ-5D-5L and either the Hip or Knee disability\/injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS\/KOOS) were used. MCII and PASS were estimated based on multiple estimation techniques.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>Distributions were skewed, with up to 95% being acceptable according to anchor questions. MCII estimates for HOOS\/KOOS Pain ranged 21\u201360\/10\u201347, with fewest in-sample misclassifications for the lowest cut-offs, provided by the 75th percentile approach. PASS estimates for HOOS\/KOOS Pain ranged 84\u201393\/78\u201391, for EQ-5D Index\/EQ-VAS 0.87\u20130.92\/66\u201379 (for hip), and 0.79\u20130.88\/66\u201376 (for knee), with fewest misclassifications for the 75th percentile approach (hip) and Pythagoras approach (knee). The 75th percentile approach was the approach most often giving MCII estimates below the minimal detectable change (MDC).<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>\n          <jats:sec>\n            <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n            <jats:p>We report new one-year estimates of MCII and PASS of HOOS, KOOS and EQ-5D subscales following hip- and knee arthroplasty. Estimates varied considerably when using different anchors and estimation techniques. Overall, the 75th percentile approach had fewest misclassifications, and had the lowest thresholds for the MCII estimations, but which were often below the MDC.<\/jats:p>\n          <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-025-03896-0","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,20]],"date-time":"2025-01-20T07:54:34Z","timestamp":1737359674000},"page":"1147-1158","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":8,"title":["Clinical cut-offs for hip- and knee arthroplasty outcome\u00a0- minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM)"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"34","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1292-4983","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Aksel","family":"Paulsen","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ane","family":"Djuv","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ingvild","family":"Dalen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,20]]},"reference":[{"key":"3896_CR1","first-page":"B4845","volume":"61","author":"A Paulsen","year":"2014","unstructured":"Paulsen, A. (2014). Patient reported outcomes in hip arthroplasty registries. Dan Med J, 61, B4845.","journal-title":"Dan Med J"},{"issue":"Suppl 2","key":"3896_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S94","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x","volume":"10","author":"MH Frost","year":"2007","unstructured":"Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., & Hays, R. D. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 10(Suppl 2), S94\u2013S105.","journal-title":"Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research"},{"key":"3896_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"39","DOI":"10.3109\/17453674.2013.867782","volume":"85","author":"A Paulsen","year":"2014","unstructured":"Paulsen, A., Roos, E. M., Pedersen, A. B., & Overgaard, S. (2014). Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthopaedica, 85, 39\u201348.","journal-title":"Acta Orthopaedica"},{"key":"3896_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"285","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMe1906559","volume":"381","author":"D Harrington","year":"2019","unstructured":"Harrington, D., D\u2019Agostino, R. B., Gatsonis, C., Hogan, J. W., Hunter, D. J., Normand, S-L-T., et al. (2019). New guidelines for statistical reporting in the <\u2009i\u2009>\u2009Journal. New England Journal of Medicine, 381, 285\u2013286.","journal-title":"New England Journal of Medicine"},{"key":"3896_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"725","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2008.09.012","volume":"62","author":"F Tubach","year":"2009","unstructured":"Tubach, F., Giraudeau, B., & Ravaud, P. (2009). The variability in minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state values did not have an impact on treatment effect estimates. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 725\u2013728.","journal-title":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology"},{"key":"3896_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.1136\/ard.2004.022905","volume":"64","author":"F Tubach","year":"2005","unstructured":"Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Baron, G., Falissard, B., Logeart, I., Bellamy, N., et al. (2005). Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: The minimal clinically important improvement. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 64, 29\u201333.","journal-title":"Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases"},{"key":"3896_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"8","DOI":"10.1016\/j.joca.2023.09.002","volume":"32","author":"J Dekker","year":"2024","unstructured":"Dekker, J., de Boer, M., & Ostelo, R. (2024). Minimal important change and difference in health outcome: An overview of approaches, concepts, and methods. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 32, 8\u201317.","journal-title":"Osteoarthritis Cartilage"},{"key":"3896_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"171","DOI":"10.1586\/erp.11.9","volume":"11","author":"MT King","year":"2011","unstructured":"King, M. T. (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): A critique of terminology and methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 11, 171\u2013184.","journal-title":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research"},{"key":"3896_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"102","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012","volume":"61","author":"D Revicki","year":"2008","unstructured":"Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102\u2013109.","journal-title":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology"},{"key":"3896_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"933","DOI":"10.1007\/s11999-016-5204-6","volume":"475","author":"M Maltenfort","year":"2017","unstructured":"Maltenfort, M., & Diaz-Ledezma, C. (2017). Statistics in brief: Minimum clinically important difference-availability of Reliable estimates. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 475, 933\u2013946.","journal-title":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research"},{"key":"3896_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"551","DOI":"10.1177\/0194599819852604","volume":"161","author":"AR Sedaghat","year":"2019","unstructured":"Sedaghat, A. R. (2019). Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 161, 551\u2013560.","journal-title":"Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery"},{"key":"3896_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e272","DOI":"10.2196\/jmir.9828","volume":"20","author":"R Froud","year":"2018","unstructured":"Froud, R., Fawkes, C., Foss, J., Underwood, M., & Carnes, D. (2018). Responsiveness, reliability, and minimally important and minimal detectable changes of 3 electronic patient-reported outcome measures for low back Pain: Validation Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20, e272.","journal-title":"Journal of Medical Internet Research"},{"key":"3896_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"735","DOI":"10.1093\/ptj\/86.5.735","volume":"86","author":"SM Haley","year":"2006","unstructured":"Haley, S. M., & Fragala-Pinkham, M. A. (2006). Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Physical Therapy, 86, 735\u2013743.","journal-title":"Physical Therapy"},{"key":"3896_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1062","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2008.10.011","volume":"62","author":"C Terwee","year":"2009","unstructured":"Terwee, C., Roorda, L., Knol, D., De Boer, M., & De Vet, H. (2009). Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1062\u20131067.","journal-title":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology"},{"key":"3896_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2765","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-021-02897-z","volume":"30","author":"RD Hays","year":"2021","unstructured":"Hays, R. D., & Peipert, J. D. (2021). Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders. Quality of Life Research, 30, 2765\u20132772.","journal-title":"Quality of Life Research"},{"key":"3896_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e0195424","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0195424","volume":"13","author":"ML Dontje","year":"2018","unstructured":"Dontje, M. L., Dall, P. M., Skelton, D. A., Gill, J. M. R., & Chastin, S. F. M. (2018). Reliability, minimal detectable change and responsiveness to change: Indicators to select the best method to measure sedentary behaviour in older adults in different study designs. PLoS One, 13, e0195424.","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"3896_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"54","DOI":"10.1186\/1477-7525-4-54","volume":"4","author":"H de Vet","year":"2006","unstructured":"de Vet, H., Terwee, C., Ostelo, R., Beckerman, H., Knol, D., & Bouter, L. (2006). Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: Distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 54.","journal-title":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes"},{"key":"3896_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2106\/jbjs.20.00184","author":"I Florissi","year":"2020","unstructured":"Florissi, I., Galea, V., Shin, D., Sauder, N., Colon Iban, Y. E., Ingelsrud, L. H., et al. (2020). External validation of achieving the patient Acceptable Symptom State for the EuroQol-5 dimension 1 year after total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2106\/jbjs.20.00184","journal-title":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume"},{"key":"3896_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.1186\/s43019-024-00210-z","volume":"36","author":"F Migliorini","year":"2024","unstructured":"Migliorini, F., Maffulli, N., Sch\u00e4fer, L., Simeone, F., Bell, A., & Hofmann, U. K. (2024). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review. Knee Surg Relat Res, 36, 3.","journal-title":"Knee Surg Relat Res"},{"key":"3896_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"35","DOI":"10.2147\/ORR.S349268","volume":"14","author":"J Molino","year":"2022","unstructured":"Molino, J., Harrington, J., Racine-Avila, J., & Aaron, R. (2022). Deconstructing the Minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Orthopedic Research and Reviews, 14, 35\u201342.","journal-title":"Orthopedic Research and Reviews"},{"key":"3896_CR21","first-page":"995","volume":"101","author":"JW Connelly","year":"2019","unstructured":"Connelly, J. W., Galea, V. P., Rojanasopondist, P., Matuszak, S. J., Ingelsrud, L. H., Nielsen, C. S., et al. (2019). Patient Acceptable Symptom State at 1 and 3 years after total knee arthroplasty: Thresholds for the knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score (KOOS). Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 101, 995\u20131003.","journal-title":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume"},{"key":"3896_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"324","DOI":"10.1186\/s12891-022-05276-y","volume":"23","author":"A Paulsen","year":"2022","unstructured":"Paulsen, A., Djuv, A., Ludvigsen, J., & Dalen, I. (2022). Excellent PROM results after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty with no postoperative restrictions: A cohort study validation of fast-track surgery without postoperative restrictions. Bmc Musculoskeletal Disorders, 23, 324.","journal-title":"Bmc Musculoskeletal Disorders"},{"key":"3896_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1727","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-011-9903-x","volume":"20","author":"M Herdman","year":"2011","unstructured":"Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727\u20131736.","journal-title":"Quality of Life Research"},{"key":"3896_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"10","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2474-4-10","volume":"4","author":"AK Nilsdotter","year":"2003","unstructured":"Nilsdotter, A. K., Lohmander, L. S., Klassbo, M., & Roos, E. M. (2003). Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)--validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. Bmc Musculoskeletal Disorders, 4, 10.","journal-title":"Bmc Musculoskeletal Disorders"},{"key":"3896_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"88","DOI":"10.2519\/jospt.1998.28.2.88","volume":"28","author":"E Roos","year":"1998","unstructured":"Roos, E., Roos, H., Lohmander, L., Ekdahl, C., & Beynnon, B. (1998). Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score (KOOS)\u2014Development of a self-administered outcome measure. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 28, 88\u201396.","journal-title":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy"},{"issue":"Suppl 1","key":"3896_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.1080\/17453674.2016.1181816","volume":"87","author":"O Rolfson","year":"2016","unstructured":"Rolfson, O., Bohm, E., Franklin, P., Lyman, S., Denissen, G., Dawson, J., et al. (2016). Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthopaedica, 87(Suppl 1), 9\u201323.","journal-title":"Acta Orthopaedica"},{"key":"3896_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e114468","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0114468","volume":"9","author":"R Froud","year":"2014","unstructured":"Froud, R., & Abel, G. (2014). Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally: The forgotten lesson of pythagoras. Theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status. PLoS One, 9, e114468.","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"3896_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"156","DOI":"10.1186\/s12955-020-01398-w","volume":"18","author":"P Woaye-Hune","year":"2020","unstructured":"Woaye-Hune, P., Hardouin, J. B., Lehur, P. A., Meurette, G., & Vanier, A. (2020). Practical issues encountered while determining minimal clinically important difference in patient-reported outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18, 156.","journal-title":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes"},{"key":"3896_CR29","unstructured":"Froud, R., & ROCMIC (2009\/\/\/Jun). Stata module to estimate minimally important change (MIC) thresholds for continuous clinical outcome measures using ROC curves. Boston College Department of Economics."},{"key":"3896_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1080\/17453674.2017.1407058","volume":"89","author":"EM Roos","year":"2018","unstructured":"Roos, E. M. (2018). 3 steps to improve reporting and interpretation of patient-reported outcome scores in orthopedic studies: Using the KOOS as an example. Acta Orthopaedica, 89, 1\u20132.","journal-title":"Acta Orthopaedica"},{"key":"3896_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"24","DOI":"10.1186\/s13018-014-0144-x","volume":"10","author":"NP Katz","year":"2015","unstructured":"Katz, N. P., Paillard, F. C., & Ekman, E. (2015). Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 10, 24\u201324.","journal-title":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research"},{"key":"3896_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Cook JA. Can Shoulder Arthroscopy Work? (CSAW) trial \u2013 Authors\u2019reply. The Lancet 2018; 392: 281\u2013282.","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(18)30773-6"},{"key":"3896_CR33","first-page":"e91","volume":"103","author":"MN Orr","year":"2021","unstructured":"Orr, M. N., Klika, A. K., Gagnier, J. J., Bhandari, M., & Piuzzi, N. S. (2021). A call for a standardized Approach to reporting patient-reported outcome measures: Clinical relevance ratio. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 103, e91.","journal-title":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume"},{"key":"3896_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"33","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-017-1616-3","volume":"27","author":"CD Coon","year":"2018","unstructured":"Coon, C. D., & Cook, K. F. (2018). Moving from significance to real-world meaning: Methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores. Quality of Life Research, 27, 33\u201340.","journal-title":"Quality of Life Research"},{"key":"3896_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"m1714","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.m1714","volume":"369","author":"T Devji","year":"2020","unstructured":"Devji, T., Carrasco-Labra, A., Qasim, A., Phillips, M., Johnston, B. C., Devasenapathy, N., et al. (2020). Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: Instrument development and reliability study. Bmj, 369, m1714.","journal-title":"Bmj"},{"key":"3896_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"22","DOI":"10.1177\/2168479015622667","volume":"50","author":"CD Coon","year":"2016","unstructured":"Coon, C. D., & Cappelleri, J. C. (2016). Interpreting change in scores on patient-reported Outcome instruments. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 50, 22\u201329.","journal-title":"Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science"},{"key":"3896_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"995","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.18.00233","volume":"101","author":"JW Connelly","year":"2019","unstructured":"Connelly, J. W., Galea, V. P., Rojanasopondist, P., Matuszak, S. J., Ingelsrud, L. H., Nielsen, C. S., et al. (2019). Patient Acceptable Symptom State at 1 and 3 years after total knee arthroplasty: Thresholds for the knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score (KOOS). JBJS, 101, 995\u20131003.","journal-title":"JBJS"},{"key":"3896_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2432","DOI":"10.1097\/CORR.0000000000000456","volume":"476","author":"S Lyman","year":"2018","unstructured":"Lyman, S., Lee, Y. Y., McLawhorn, A. S., Islam, W., & MacLean, C. H. (2018). What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 476, 2432\u20132441.","journal-title":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research"},{"key":"3896_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"702","DOI":"10.1097\/CORR.0000000000002434","volume":"481","author":"DG Deckey","year":"2023","unstructured":"Deckey, D. G., Verhey, J. T., Christopher, Z. K., Gerhart, C. R. B., Clarke, H. D., Spangehl, M. J., & Bingham, J. S. (2023). Discordance abounds in Minimum clinically important differences in THA: A systematic review. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research\u00ae481, 702\u2013714.","journal-title":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research\u00ae"},{"issue":"Suppl 2","key":"3896_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S116","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1524-4733.2007.00274.x","volume":"10","author":"DA Revicki","year":"2007","unstructured":"Revicki, D. A., Erickson, P. A., Sloan, J. A., Dueck, A., Guess, H., Santanello, N. C., & Mayo, F. D. A. P. R. O. C. M. G. (2007). Interpreting and reporting results based on patient-reported outcomes. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 10(Suppl 2), S116\u2013124.","journal-title":"Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research"},{"key":"3896_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"118","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2020.05.008","volume":"124","author":"B Terluin","year":"2020","unstructured":"Terluin, B., Griffiths, P., van der Wouden, J. C., Ingelsrud, L. H., & Terwee, C. B. (2020). Unlike ROC analysis, a new IRT method identified clinical thresholds unbiased by disease prevalence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 124, 118\u2013125.","journal-title":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology"},{"key":"3896_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"900","DOI":"10.1016\/S0895-4356(02)00435-3","volume":"55","author":"GH Guyatt","year":"2002","unstructured":"Guyatt, G. H., Norman, G. R., Juniper, E. F., & Griffith, L. E. (2002). A critical look at transition ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55, 900\u2013908.","journal-title":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology"},{"key":"3896_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-013-0443-4","volume":"23","author":"PM Fayers","year":"2014","unstructured":"Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2014). Don\u2019t middle your MIDs: Regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1\u20134.","journal-title":"Quality of Life Research"},{"key":"3896_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2729","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-021-02925-y","volume":"30","author":"CB Terwee","year":"2021","unstructured":"Terwee, C. B., Peipert, J. D., Chapman, R., Lai, J. S., Terluin, B., Cella, D., et al. (2021). Minimal important change (MIC): A conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures. Quality of Life Research, 30, 2729\u20132754.","journal-title":"Quality of Life Research"},{"key":"3896_CR45","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"128","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2021.12.024","volume":"143","author":"B Terluin","year":"2022","unstructured":"Terluin, B., Griffiths, P., Trigg, A., Terwee, C. B., & Bjorner, J. B. (2022). Present state bias in transition ratings was accurately estimated in simulated and real data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 143, 128\u2013136.","journal-title":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology"},{"key":"3896_CR46","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"131","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-006-9109-9","volume":"16","author":"HC de Vet","year":"2007","unstructured":"de Vet, H. C., Ostelo, R. W., Terwee, C. B., van der Roer, N., Knol, D. L., Beckerman, H., et al. (2007). Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Quality of Life Research, 16, 131\u2013142.","journal-title":"Quality of Life Research"},{"key":"3896_CR47","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Health Measurement Scales. Oxford University Press.","DOI":"10.1093\/oso\/9780198528470.001.0001"},{"key":"3896_CR48","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"321","DOI":"10.3109\/17453674.2012.702390","volume":"83","author":"A Paulsen","year":"2012","unstructured":"Paulsen, A., Pedersen, A. B., Overgaard, S., & Roos, E. M. (2012). Feasibility of 4 patient-reported outcome measures in a registry setting. Acta Orthopaedica, 83, 321\u2013327.","journal-title":"Acta Orthopaedica"},{"key":"3896_CR49","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Paulsen, A., Harboe, K., & Dalen, I. (2020). Data entry quality of double data entry vs automated form processing technologies: A cohort study validation of optical mark recognition and intelligent character recognition in a clinical setting.; 3: e210.","DOI":"10.1002\/hsr2.210"},{"key":"3896_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"31","DOI":"10.1186\/s12891-018-2386-y","volume":"20","author":"IM Austevoll","year":"2019","unstructured":"Austevoll, I. M., Gjestad, R., Grotle, M., Solberg, T., Brox, J. I., Hermansen, E., et al. (2019). Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 20, 31.","journal-title":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders"}],"container-title":["Quality of Life Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11136-025-03896-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s11136-025-03896-0\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11136-025-03896-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,9]],"date-time":"2025-04-09T18:40:37Z","timestamp":1744224037000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s11136-025-03896-0"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,20]]},"references-count":50,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,4]]}},"alternative-id":["3896"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11136-025-03896-0","relation":{},"ISSN":["0962-9343","1573-2649"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0962-9343","type":"print"},{"value":"1573-2649","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,20]]},"assertion":[{"value":"8 January 2025","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"20 January 2025","order":2,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.The study has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was submitted for registration to the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC), considered a follow-up quality-control study under the jurisdiction of the local data protection officer, and has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval (REC West 2018\/268). Due to the use of no personally identifiable data, only anonymous data from patient journals, the study was exempted informed written consent from patients, and was approved by the local data protection officer (journal number 6\/2018).","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"The authors declare that they have no competing interests.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}]}}