Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit for the Pain Visual Analog Scale in a Postoperative Hand Surgery Population

      Purpose

      Although the pain visual analog scale (VAS-pain) is a ubiquitous patient-reported outcome instrument, it remains unclear how to interpret changes or differences in scores. Therefore, our purpose was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population.

      Methods

      Adult postoperative patients treated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained orthopedic hand surgeons at a single tertiary academic medical center were identified. Inclusion required VAS-pain scores at baseline (up to 3 months before surgery) and follow-up (up to 4 months after surgery), in addition to a response to a pain-specific anchor question at follow-up. The MCID estimates were calculated with (1) the 1/2 standard deviation method; and (2) an anchor-based approach. The SCB estimates were calculated with (1) an anchor-based approach; and (2) a receiver operator curve method that maximized the sensitivity and specificity for detecting a “much improved” pain status.

      Results

      There were 667 and 148 total patients included in the MCID and SCB analyses, respectively. The 1/2 standard deviation MCID estimate was 1.6, and the anchor-based estimate was 1.9. The anchor-based SCB estimate was 2.2. The receiver operator curve analysis yielded an SCB estimate of 2.6, with an area under the curve of 0.72, consistent with acceptable discrimination.

      Conclusions

      We propose MCID values in the range of 1.6 to 1.9 and SCB values in the range of 2.2 to 2.6 for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population.

      Clinical relevance

      These MCID and SCB estimates may be useful for powering clinical studies and when interpreting VAS-pain score changes or differences reported in the hand surgery literature. These values are to be applied at a population level, and should not be applied to assess the improvement, or lack thereof, for individual patients.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Hand Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Wells N.
        • Pasero C.
        • McCaffery M.
        Improving the quality of care through pain assessment and management.
        in: Hughes R.G. Patient Safety and Quality: an Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville, MD2008 (Accessed March 13, 2021.)
        • Phillips D.M.
        JCAHO pain management standards are unveiled. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.
        JAMA. 2000; 284: 428-429
        • Mularski R.A.
        • White-Chu F.
        • Overbay D.
        • Miller L.
        • Asch S.M.
        • Ganzini L.
        Measuring pain as the 5th vital sign does not improve quality of pain management.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2006; 21: 607-612
        • Glassman S.D.
        • Copay A.G.
        • Berven S.H.
        • Polly D.W.
        • Subach B.R.
        • Carreon L.Y.
        Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90: 1839-1847
        • Wright A.
        • Hannon J.
        • Hegedus E.J.
        • Kavchak A.E.
        Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).
        J Man Manip Ther. 2012; 20: 160-166
        • Kazmers N.H.
        • Qiu Y.
        • Yoo M.
        • Stephens A.R.
        • Zeidan M.
        • Zhang Y.
        Establishing the minimal clinically important difference for the PROMIS upper extremity computer adaptive test version 2.0 in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity population.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2021; 46: 927.e1-927.e10
        • Kazmers N.H.
        • Qiu Y.
        • Ou Z.
        • Presson A.P.
        • Tyser A.R.
        • Zhang Y.
        Minimal clinically important difference of the PROMIS upper-extremity computer adaptive test and QuickDASH for ligament reconstruction tendon interposition patients.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2021; 46: 516-516.e7
        • Kazmers N.H.
        • Qiu Y.
        • Yoo M.
        • Stephens A.R.
        • Tyser A.R.
        • Zhang Y.
        The minimal clinically important difference of the PROMIS and QuickDASH instruments in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity patient population.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2020; 45: 399-407.e6
        • Kazmers N.H.
        • Hung M.
        • Bounsanga J.
        • Voss M.W.
        • Howenstein A.
        • Tyser A.R.
        Minimal clinically important difference after carpal tunnel release using the PROMIS platform.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2019; 44: 947-953.e1
        • Bernstein D.N.
        • Houck J.R.
        • Mahmood B.
        • Hammert W.C.
        Minimal clinically important differences for PROMIS physical function, upper extremity, and pain interference in carpal tunnel release using region- and condition-specific PROM tools.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2019; 44: 635-640
        • Copay A.G.
        • Chung A.S.
        • Eyberg B.
        • Olmscheid N.
        • Chutkan N.
        • Spangehl M.J.
        Minimum clinically important difference: current trends in the orthopaedic literature, part I: upper extremity: a systematic review.
        JBJS Rev. 2018; 6 (e1)
        • Sorensen A.A.
        • Howard D.
        • Tan W.H.
        • Ketchersid J.
        • Calfee R.P.
        Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2013; 38: 641-649
        • Sandvall B.
        • Okoroafor U.C.
        • Gerull W.
        • Guattery J.
        • Calfee R.P.
        Minimal clinically important difference for PROMIS physical function in patients with distal radius fractures.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2019; 44: 454-459.e1
        • Copay A.G.
        • Subach B.R.
        • Glassman S.D.
        • Polly II, D.W.
        • Schuler T.C.
        Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.
        Spine J. 2007; 7: 541-546
        • Chowdhury N.I.
        • Mace J.C.
        • Bodner T.E.
        • et al.
        Does medical therapy improve sinonasal Outcomes Test-22 domain scores? An analysis of clinically important differences.
        Laryngoscope. 2019; 129: 31-36
        • Ho B.
        • Houck J.R.
        • Flemister A.S.
        • et al.
        Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2016; 37: 911-918
        • Katz P.
        • Morris A.
        • Trupin L.
        • Yazdany J.
        • Yelin E.
        Disability in valued life activities among individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2008; 59: 465-473
        • Norman G.R.
        • Sloan J.A.
        • Wyrwich K.W.
        Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation.
        Med Care. 2003; 41: 582-592
        • Pickard A.S.
        • Neary M.P.
        • Cella D.
        Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007; 5: 70
        • Crosby R.D.
        • Kolotkin R.L.
        • Williams G.R.
        Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 395-407
        • Insall J.N.
        • Dorr L.D.
        • Scott R.D.
        • Scott W.N.
        Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; 248: 13-14
        • Tashjian R.Z.
        • Deloach J.
        • Porucznik C.A.
        • Powell A.P.
        Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18: 927-932
        • Olsen M.F.
        • Bjerre E.
        • Hansen M.D.
        • et al.
        Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain.
        BMC Med. 2017; 15: 35
        • Myles P.S.
        • Myles D.B.
        • Galagher W.
        • et al.
        Measuring acute postoperative pain using the visual analog scale: the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state.
        Br J Anaesth. 2017; 118: 424-429
        • Lu Y.
        • Beletsky A.
        • Chahla J.
        • et al.
        How can we define clinically important improvement in pain scores after biceps tenodesis?.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30: 430-438
        • Agarwalla A.
        • Lu Y.
        • Chang E.
        • et al.
        Influence of mental health on postoperative outcomes in patients following biceps tenodesis.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020; 29: 2248-2256
        • Simovitch R.
        • Flurin P.H.
        • Wright T.
        • Zuckerman J.D.
        • Roche C.P.
        Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinical benefit.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27: 903-911
        • Beck E.C.
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Kunze K.N.
        • Chahla J.
        • Nho S.J.
        How can we define clinically important improvement in pain scores after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome? Minimum 2-year follow-up study.
        Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47: 3133-3140
        • Smith M.V.
        • Calfee R.P.
        • Baumgarten K.M.
        • Brophy R.H.
        • Wright R.W.
        Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: 277-285
        • Hoang-Kim A.
        • Pegreffi F.
        • Moroni A.
        • Ladd A.
        Measuring wrist and hand function: common scales and checklists.
        Injury. 2011; 42: 253-258
        • Alderman A.K.
        • Chung K.C.
        Measuring outcomes in hand surgery.
        Clin Plast Surg. 2008; 35: 239-250
        • Chung K.C.
        • Burns P.B.
        • Sears E.D.
        Outcomes research in hand surgery: where have we been and where should we go?.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2006; 31: 1373-1379
        • Hand Surgery Quality Consortium
        Candidate quality measures for hand surgery.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2017; 42: 859-866.e3
        • Keller R.B.
        Outcomes research in orthopaedics.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1993; 1: 122-129
        • Beaton D.E.
        • van Eerd D.
        • Smith P.
        • et al.
        Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: a diagnostic testing approach to interpretability.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 487-496
        • Cook C.E.
        Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense.
        J Man Manip Ther. 2008; 16: E82-E83
        • Ogura K.
        • Yakoub M.A.
        • Christ A.B.
        • et al.
        The critical difference in the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) outcome measure after essential upper extremity tumor surgery.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30: e602-e609
        • Kanto K.
        • Lähdeoja T.
        • Paavola M.
        • et al.
        Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21: 45

      Linked Article