Implementation of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference for the Neck Disability Index is Often Problematic: A Methodological Review.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine Pub Date : 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005300
Nathan Evaniew, Armaan K Malholtra, Raphaële Charest-Morin, Alex Soroceanu, W Bradley Jacobs, David W Cadotte, Greg McIntosh, Nicolas Dea
{"title":"Implementation of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference for the Neck Disability Index is Often Problematic: A Methodological Review.","authors":"Nathan Evaniew, Armaan K Malholtra, Raphaële Charest-Morin, Alex Soroceanu, W Bradley Jacobs, David W Cadotte, Greg McIntosh, Nicolas Dea","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic Review.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the incidence of inappropriate or uncertain implementation of the Minimally Important Clinical Difference (MCID) for the Neck Disability Index (NDI).</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>The NDI consists of 10 items that yield a total score out of 50, but some users double the scale to report total scores out of 100. The most used MCID for the NDI is 7.5 out of 50. Implementation of the MCID can be problematic if users are not attentive to the scale of the NDI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a methodological review of studies that cited the MCID for the NDI. We defined appropriate implementation as congruent magnitude of the scales used for NDI data and the MCID. We evaluated study characteristics associated with appropriate implementation using multivariable logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 163 included studies, twenty (12%) reported a 0-50 scale for the NDI, 66 (40%) reported a 0-100 scale, and the remaining 77 (47%) did not report which scale was used. Fifty-seven (35%) reported an MCID of 7.5, 37 (23%) reported an MCID of 15, and the remaining 69 (42%) did not report which value of the MCID used. Appropriate implementation of the MCID occurred in 39 studies (24%), while implementation was inappropriate in 16 (10%) and uncertain due to poor reporting in 108 (66%). Studies published more recently (OR 1.20 per year, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40, P=0.03) and studies that were RCTs (OR 4.85, 95% CI 1.25 to 18.79, P=0.02) had greater odds of being associated with appropriate implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inappropriate implementation of the MCID for the NDI is problematic and occurs often, and uncertain implementation due to poor reporting is also common. Evidence users should be cautious when interpreting studies that implement the NDI, and should consider whether the magnitude of the scales used for the NDI and the MCID are congruent.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005300","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Systematic Review.

Objective: To determine the incidence of inappropriate or uncertain implementation of the Minimally Important Clinical Difference (MCID) for the Neck Disability Index (NDI).

Summary of background data: The NDI consists of 10 items that yield a total score out of 50, but some users double the scale to report total scores out of 100. The most used MCID for the NDI is 7.5 out of 50. Implementation of the MCID can be problematic if users are not attentive to the scale of the NDI.

Methods: We performed a methodological review of studies that cited the MCID for the NDI. We defined appropriate implementation as congruent magnitude of the scales used for NDI data and the MCID. We evaluated study characteristics associated with appropriate implementation using multivariable logistic regression.

Results: Among 163 included studies, twenty (12%) reported a 0-50 scale for the NDI, 66 (40%) reported a 0-100 scale, and the remaining 77 (47%) did not report which scale was used. Fifty-seven (35%) reported an MCID of 7.5, 37 (23%) reported an MCID of 15, and the remaining 69 (42%) did not report which value of the MCID used. Appropriate implementation of the MCID occurred in 39 studies (24%), while implementation was inappropriate in 16 (10%) and uncertain due to poor reporting in 108 (66%). Studies published more recently (OR 1.20 per year, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40, P=0.03) and studies that were RCTs (OR 4.85, 95% CI 1.25 to 18.79, P=0.02) had greater odds of being associated with appropriate implementation.

Conclusions: Inappropriate implementation of the MCID for the NDI is problematic and occurs often, and uncertain implementation due to poor reporting is also common. Evidence users should be cautious when interpreting studies that implement the NDI, and should consider whether the magnitude of the scales used for the NDI and the MCID are congruent.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Morbidly Obese Patients Have Similar Clinical Outcomes and Recovery Kinetics After Minimally Invasive Decompression. Establishing a Benchmark for Iatrogenic Hemodilution and Blood Transfusion in Long-Segment Spine Fusion Surgery. Immediate Postoperative Change in the Upper Instrumented Screw-Vertebra Angle is a Predictor for Proximal Junctional Kyphosis and Failure. The Impact of the Preoperative Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) Score on Short-Term Outcomes After Lumbar Fusion. Risk Factors of Failed Conservative Treatment for Adjacent Vertebral Fractures Following Percutaneous Vertebroplasty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1