{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,25]],"date-time":"2026-08-25T06:15:42Z","timestamp":1787638542882,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":25,"publisher":"Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)","issue":"5","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["SPI"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2011,5]]},"abstract":"\n Object<\/jats:title>\n Outcome studies for spine surgery rely on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess treatment effects. Commonly used health-related quality-of-life questionnaires include the following scales: back pain and leg pain visual analog scale (BP-VAS and LP-VAS); the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); and the EuroQol-5D health survey (EQ-5D). A shortcoming of these questionnaires is that their numerical scores lack a direct meaning or clinical significance. Because of this, the concept of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been put forth as a measure for the critical threshold needed to achieve treatment effectiveness. By this measure, treatment effects reaching the MCID threshold value imply clinical significance and justification for implementation into clinical practice.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Methods<\/jats:title>\n In 45 consecutive patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis-associated back and leg pain, PRO questionnaires measuring BP-VAS, LPVAS, ODI, and EQ-5D were administered preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively, and 2-year change scores were calculated. Four established anchor-based MCID calculation methods were used to calculate MCID, as follows: 1) average change; 2) minimum detectable change (MDC); 3) change difference; and 4) receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for two separate anchors (the health transition index [HTI] of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], and the satisfaction index).<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results<\/jats:title>\n All patients were available at the 2-year follow-up. The 2-year improvements in BP-VAS, LP-VAS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores were 4.3 \u00b1 2.9, 3.8 \u00b1 3.4, 19.5 \u00b1 11.3, and 0.43 \u00b1 0.44, respectively (mean \u00b1 SD). The 4 MCID calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each of the PROs (BP-VAS, 2.1\u20135.3; LP-VAS, 2.1\u20134.7; ODI, 11\u201322.9; and EQ-5D, 0.15\u20130.54). The mean area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating characteristic curve from the 4 PRO-specific calculations was greater for the HTI versus satisfaction anchor (HTI [AUC 0.73] vs satisfaction [AUC 0.69]), suggesting HTI as a more accurate anchor.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n The TLIF-specific MCID is highly variable based on calculation technique. The MDC approach with the SF-36 HTI anchor appears to be most appropriate for calculating MCID because it provided a threshold above the 95% CI of the unimproved cohort (greater than the measurement error), was closest to the mean change score reported by improved and satisfied patients, and was least affected by the choice of anchor. Based on the MDC method with HTI anchor, MCID scores following TLIF are 2.1 points for BP-VAS, 2.8 points for LP-VAS, 14.9 points for ODI, and 0.46 quality-adjusted life years for EQ-5D.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3171\/2010.12.spine10472","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2011,2,18]],"date-time":"2011-02-18T10:21:32Z","timestamp":1298024492000},"page":"598-604","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":307,"title":["Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis"],"prefix":"10.3171","volume":"14","author":[{"given":"Scott L.","family":"Parker","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Owoicho","family":"Adogwa","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Alexandra R.","family":"Paul","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"William N.","family":"Anderson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Independent Statistician, Lake Forest, California"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Oran","family":"Aaronson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Joseph S.","family":"Cheng","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Matthew J.","family":"McGirt","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1754","reference":[{"key":"b1-spine10472","series-title":"Intensive Care Med","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1901","DOI":"10.1007\/s00134-001-1137-x","article-title":"Using the EuroQol-5D to measure changes in quality of life 12 months after discharge from an intensive care unit","volume":"27","author":"Badia","year":"2001"},{"key":"b2-spine10472","series-title":"Med Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"593","DOI":"10.1097\/01.MLR.0000064706.35861.B4","article-title":"Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation","volume":"41","author":"Beaton","year":"2003"},{"key":"b3-spine10472","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"469","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2010.02.007","article-title":"Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion","volume":"10","author":"Carreon","year":"2010"},{"key":"b4-spine10472","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"968","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2007.11.006","article-title":"Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales","volume":"8","author":"Copay","year":"2008"},{"key":"b5-spine10472","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"541","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2007.01.008","article-title":"Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods","volume":"7","author":"Copay","year":"2007"},{"key":"b6-spine10472","series-title":"Physiotherapy","first-page":"271","article-title":"The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire","volume":"66","author":"Fairbank","year":"1980"},{"key":"b7-spine10472","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2940","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200011150-00017","article-title":"The Oswestry Disability Index","volume":"25","author":"Fairbank","year":"2000"},{"key":"b8-spine10472","series-title":"Ann Emerg Med","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"633","DOI":"10.1067\/mem.2001.118863","article-title":"Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale","volume":"38","author":"Gallagher","year":"2001"},{"key":"b9-spine10472","series-title":"Clin J Pain","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"189","DOI":"10.1097\/00002508-199309000-00006","article-title":"Intercorrelation and test-retest reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients","volume":"9","author":"Gr\u00f6nblad","year":"1993"},{"key":"b10-spine10472","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"12","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-002-0464-0","article-title":"The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain","volume":"12","author":"H\u00e4gg","year":"2003"},{"key":"b11-spine10472","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1213","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200206010-00014","article-title":"Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain","volume":"27","author":"H\u00e4gg","year":"2002"},{"key":"b12-spine10472","series-title":"Pharmacoeconomics","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"419","DOI":"10.2165\/00019053-200018050-00001","article-title":"The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?","volume":"18","author":"Hays","year":"2000"},{"key":"b13-spine10472","series-title":"Control Clin Trials","first-page":"407","article-title":"Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference","volume":"10","author":"Jaeschke","year":"1989"},{"key":"b14-spine10472","series-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Br","first-page":"210","article-title":"Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis","volume":"91","author":"Jansson","year":"2009"},{"key":"b15-spine10472","series-title":"J Clin Epidemiol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"176","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2005.07.011","article-title":"Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire","volume":"59","author":"Kulkarni","year":"2006"},{"key":"b16-spine10472","series-title":"Med Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"582","DOI":"10.1097\/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C","article-title":"Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation","volume":"41","author":"Norman","year":"2003"},{"key":"b17-spine10472","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3115","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200012150-00006","article-title":"The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire","volume":"25","author":"Roland","year":"2000"},{"key":"b18-spine10472","series-title":"Pharmacoeconomics","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"141","DOI":"10.2165\/00019053-199915020-00003","article-title":"Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II","volume":"15","author":"Samsa","year":"1999"},{"key":"b19-spine10472","series-title":"Phys Ther","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1186","DOI":"10.1093\/ptj\/78.11.1186","article-title":"Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1","volume":"78","author":"Stratford","year":"1998"},{"key":"b20-spine10472","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1805","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199909010-00010","article-title":"Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain","volume":"24","author":"Taylor","year":"1999"},{"key":"b21-spine10472","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"578","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000201293.57439.47","article-title":"Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain","volume":"31","author":"van der Roer","year":"2006"},{"key":"b22-spine10472","series-title":"Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3130","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200012150-00008","article-title":"SF-36 health survey update","volume":"25","author":"Ware","year":"2000"},{"key":"b23-spine10472","series-title":"Med Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"597","DOI":"10.1097\/00005650-200305000-00006","article-title":"Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple","volume":"41","author":"Wright","year":"2003"},{"key":"b24-spine10472","series-title":"Med Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"469","DOI":"10.1097\/00005650-199905000-00006","article-title":"Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life","volume":"37","author":"Wyrwich","year":"1999"},{"key":"b25-spine10472","series-title":"J Clin Epidemiol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"861","DOI":"10.1016\/S0895-4356(99)00071-2","article-title":"Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life","volume":"52","author":"Wyrwich","year":"1999"}],"container-title":["Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/14\/5\/article-p598.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/14\/5\/article-p598.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/14\/5\/article-p598.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,15]],"date-time":"2023-04-15T18:15:13Z","timestamp":1681582513000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/14\/5\/article-p598.xml"}},"subtitle":["Clinical article"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2011,5]]},"references-count":25,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2010.12.spine10472","relation":{},"ISSN":["1547-5654"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1547-5654","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2011,5]]}}}