Advertisement

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit Values for a Pain Visual Analog Scale After Hip Arthroscopy

      Purpose

      To define minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for a pain visual analog scale (VAS) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement or chondrolabral pathology.

      Methods

      This was a retrospective review of prospective collected data on patients having hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and/or chondrolabral pathology. On initial assessment and follow-up between 335 and 395 days postsurgery, subjects completed a pain VAS and categorical self-rating of function. MCID was calculated using one-half the standard deviation (SD) of the change in 1-year pain VAS values. Receiver operator characteristic analysis was performed to determine SCB values. A change in SCB value was determined based on change in categorical self-rating of function to create “improved” and “not improved” groups. Absolute postoperative SCB scores were calculated to determine scores that would be associated with “normal” or “abnormal” function ratings.

      Results

      Of 1,034 eligible patients, 733 (71%) met the inclusion criteria, with 537 (73%) women and 196 (27%) men having a mean age of 35.3 years (SD 13). At a mean of 352 (SD 21) days postsurgery, 536 (73%) were in the improved group and 197 (27%) in the not improved group. MCID was –15.0 mm. A change of –22.7 mm on the pain VAS was able to identify those that improved with high sensitivity (0.74) and specificity (0.63). Values of ≤10.4 mm and ≥29.0 mm were cutoffs identifying subjects that rated their function as normal or abnormal, respectively, with high sensitivity (0.79 and 0.76) and specificity (0.88 and 0.76).

      Conclusions

      This study provides surgeons with information to help interpret pain VAS values at a follow-up period ranging from 335 to 395 days with MCID and SCB values of –15.0 mm and –22.7 mm, respectively. Additionally, a patient who assesses a pain level at ≤10.4 mm is likely to have a normal rating of function, whereas a patient who assesses a pain level at ≥29.0 mm is likely to have an abnormal rating of function.

      Level of Evidence

      III, retrospective comparative study.
      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 Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kroenke K.
        Pain measurement in research and practice.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2018; 33: 7-8
        • Turk D.C.
        • Dworkin R.H.
        • Allen R.R.
        • et al.
        Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.
        Pain. 2003; 106: 337-345
        • McCarthy Jr., M.
        • Chang C.H.
        • Pickard A.S.
        • et al.
        Visual analog scales for assessing surgical pain.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2005; 201: 245-252
        • Myles P.S.
        • Urquhart N.
        The linearity of the visual analogue scale in patients with severe acute pain.
        Anaesth Intensive Care. 2005; 33: 54-58
        • Bodian C.A.
        • Freedman G.
        • Hossain S.
        • Eisenkraft J.B.
        • Beilin Y.
        The visual analog scale for pain: Clinical significance in postoperative patients.
        Anesthesiology. 2001; 95: 1356-1361
        • Hjermstad M.J.
        • Fayers P.M.
        • Haugen D.F.
        • et al.
        Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: A systematic literature review.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011; 41: 1073-1093
        • Goldsmith E.S.
        • Taylor B.C.
        • Greer N.
        • et al.
        Focused evidence review: Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for chronic musculoskeletal pain.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2018; 33: 61-70
        • Ferreira-Valente M.A.
        • Pais-Ribeiro J.L.
        • Jensen M.P.
        Validity of four pain intensity rating scales.
        Pain. 2011; 152: 2399-2404
        • Myles P.S.
        • Troedel S.
        • Boquest M.
        • Reeves M.
        The pain visual analog scale: Is it linear or nonlinear?.
        Anesth Analg. 1999; 89: 1517-1520
        • 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
        • Karcioglu O.
        • Topacoglu H.
        • Dikme O.
        • Dikme O.
        A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use?.
        Am J Emerg Med. 2018; 36: 707-714
        • Kemp J.L.
        • Makdissi M.
        • Schache A.G.
        • Finch C.F.
        • Pritchard M.G.
        • Crossley K.M.
        Is quality of life following hip arthroscopy in patients with chondrolabral pathology associated with impairments in hip strength or range of motion?.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24: 3955-3961
        • Griffin D.R.
        • Dickenson E.J.
        • O’Donnell J.
        • et al.
        The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): An international consensus statement.
        Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50: 1169-1176
        • Reiman M.P.
        • Peters S.
        • Sylvain J.
        • Hagymasi S.
        • Ayeni O.R.
        Prevalence and consistency in surgical outcome reporting for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: A scoping review.
        Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 1319-1328.e1319
        • Beaule P.E.
        • O’Neill M.
        • Rakhra K.
        Acetabular labral tears.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91: 701-710
        • Kelly B.T.
        • Williams 3rd, R.J.
        • Philippon M.J.
        Hip arthroscopy: Current indications, treatment options, and management issues.
        Am J Sports Med. 2003; 31: 1020-1037
        • Philippon M.J.
        • Maxwell R.B.
        • Johnston T.L.
        • Schenker M.
        • Briggs K.K.
        Clinical presentation of femoroacetabular impingement.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007; 15: 1041-1047
        • Boonstra A.M.
        • Schiphorst Preuper H.R.
        • Balk G.A.
        • Stewart R.E.
        Cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain on the visual analogue scale for pain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.
        Pain. 2014; 155: 2545-2550
        • 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
        • Katz N.P.
        • Paillard F.C.
        • Ekman E.
        Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions.
        J Orthop Surg Res. 2015; 10: 24
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Chang B.
        • Rotter B.Z.
        • Kelly B.T.
        • Ranawat A.S.
        • Nawabi D.H.
        Minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after revision hip arthroscopy.
        Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 1862-1868
        • Kvien T.K.
        • Heiberg T.
        • Hagen K.B.
        Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): What do these concepts mean?.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 2007; 66: iii40-41
        • Harris J.D.
        • Brand J.C.
        • Cote M.P.
        • Faucett S.C.
        • Dhawan A.
        Research pearls: The significance of statistics and perils of pooling. Part 1: Clinical versus statistical significance.
        Arthroscopy. 2017; 33: 1102-1112
        • Portney L.
        • Watkins M.
        Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice.
        Ed 2. Prentice Hall Health, Upper Saddle River, NJ2000
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Chang B.
        • Fields K.
        • et al.
        Defining the “substantial clinical benefit” after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement.
        Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 1297-1303
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Fields K.
        • Chang B.
        • Nawabi D.H.
        • Kelly B.T.
        • Ranawat A.S.
        Preoperative outcome scores are predictive of achieving the minimal clinically important difference after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement.
        Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 612-619
        • 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
        • Beaton D.E.
        Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 3192-3199
        • Lasko T.A.
        • Bhagwat J.G.
        • Zou K.H.
        • Ohno-Machado L.
        The use of receiver operating characteristic curves in biomedical informatics.
        J Biomed Inform. 2005; 38: 404-415
        • Park S.H.
        • Goo J.M.
        • Jo C.H.
        Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: Practical review for radiologists.
        Korean J Radiol. 2004; 5: 11-18
        • Gortmaker S.L.
        • Hosmer D.W.
        • Lemeshow S.
        Applied logistic regression.
        Contemp Sociol. 1994; 23: 159
        • Schisterman E.F.
        • Perkins N.J.
        • Liu A.
        • Bondell H.
        Optimal cut-point and its corresponding Youden Index to discriminate individuals using pooled blood samples.
        Epidemiology. 2005; 16: 73-81
        • Kierkegaard S.
        • Langeskov-Christensen M.
        • Lund B.
        • et al.
        Pain, activities of daily living and sport function at different time points after hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
        Br J Sports Med. 2017; 51: 572-579
        • Dworkin R.H.
        • Turk D.C.
        • Wyrwich K.W.
        • et al.
        Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.
        J Pain. 2008; 9: 105-121
        • Farrar J.T.
        • Portenoy R.K.
        • Berlin J.A.
        • Kinman J.L.
        • Strom B.L.
        Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures.
        Pain. 2000; 88: 287-294
        • Auffinger B.M.
        • Lall R.R.
        • Dahdaleh N.S.
        • et al.
        Measuring surgical outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Assessment of minimum clinically important difference.
        PloS One. 2013; 8: e67408
        • Jensen M.P.
        • Chen C.
        • Brugger A.M.
        Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: A reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain.
        J Pain. 2003; 4: 407-414
        • Tubach F.
        • Ravaud P.
        • Baron G.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: The minimal clinically important improvement.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 2005; 64: 29-33
        • 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
        • Mercieca-Bebber R.
        • Rouette J.
        • Calvert M.
        • et al.
        Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension.
        Qual Life Res. 2017; 26: 1427-1437
        • Calvert M.
        • Kyte D.
        • Duffy H.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in clinical trials: A systematic review of guidance for trial protocol writers.
        PloS One. 2014; 9: e110216
        • Kemp J.L.
        • Makdissi M.
        • Schache A.G.
        • Pritchard M.G.
        • Pollard T.C.
        • Crossley K.M.
        Hip chondropathy at arthroscopy: Prevalence and relationship to labral pathology, femoroacetabular impingement and patient-reported outcomes.
        Br J Sports Med. 2014; 48: 1102-1107
        • Brunner A.
        • Horisberger M.
        • Herzog R.F.
        Sports and recreation activity of patients with femoroacetabular impingement before and after arthroscopic osteoplasty.
        Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37: 917-922
        • Olsen M.F.
        • Bjerre E.
        • Hansen M.D.
        • Tendal B.
        • Hilden J.
        • Hrobjartsson A.
        Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: Systematic review of empirical studies.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 101: 87-106.e102
        • Kersten P.
        • White P.J.
        • Tennant A.
        Is the pain visual analogue scale linear and responsive to change? An exploration using Rasch analysis.
        PloS One. 2014; 9: e99485

      Linked Article