Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the scores of patient-reported outcome measures allow clinicians to assess the outcome of intervention from the perspective of the patient. There has been significant variation in their absolute values in previous publications and a lack of consistency in their calculation. The purpose of this study was first, to establish whether these values, following spinal surgery, vary depending on the surgical intervention and their method of calculation and secondly, to assess whether there is any correlation between the two external anchors most frequently used to calculate the MCID. . We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data of adult patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between 1994 and 2009. A total of 244 patients were included. There were 125 men and 119 women with a mean age of 54 years (16 to 84); the mean follow-up was 62 months (6 to 199) The MCID was calculated using three previously published methods. Our results show that the value of the MCID varies considerably with the operation and its method of calculation. There was good correlation between the two external anchors. The global outcome tool correlated significantly better. We conclude that consensus needs to be reached on the best method of calculating the MCID. This then needs to be defined for each spinal procedure. Using a blanket value for the MCID for all spinal procedures should be avoided. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:366–71

Aims

The Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tool designed to assess artificial prosthesis awareness during daily activities following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) is the minimum cut-off value that corresponds to a patient’s satisfactory state-of-health. Despite the validity and reliability of the FJS-12 having been previously demonstrated, the PASS has yet to be clearly defined. This study aims to define the PASS of the FJS-12 following primary THA.

Aims. The aims of this study were to validate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds for Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores following arthroscopic Bankart repair, and to identify preoperative threshold values of these scores that could predict the achievement of MCID and PASS. Methods. A retrospective review was conducted on 131 consecutive patients with anterior shoulder instability who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between January 2020 and January 2023. Inclusion criteria required at least one episode of shoulder instability and a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. Preoperative and one-year postoperative scores were assessed. MCID and PASS were estimated using distribution-based and anchor-based methods, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis determined preoperative patient-reported outcome measure thresholds predictive of achieving MCID and PASS. Results. MCID thresholds were determined as 169.6, 6.8, 7.2, and 1.1 for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS, respectively. PASS thresholds were calculated as ≤ 480, ≥ 80, ≥ 87, and ≤ 1 for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS, respectively. Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 760 (WOSI) and ≤ 50 (Rowe) predicted achieving MCID for WOSI score (p < 0.001). Preoperative thresholds of ≤ 60 (ASES) and ≥ 2 (VAS) predicted achieving MCID for VAS score (p < 0.001). A preoperative threshold of ≥ 40 (Rowe) predicted achieving PASS for Rowe score (p = 0.005). Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 50 (ASES; p = 0.002) and ≤ 2 (VAS; p < 0.001) predicted achieving PASS for the ASES score. Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 43 (ASES; p = 0.046) and ≤ 4 (VAS; p = 0.024) predicted achieving PASS for the VAS. Conclusion. This study defined MCID and PASS values for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS scores in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. Higher preoperative functional scores may reduce the likelihood of achieving MCID but increase the likelihood of achieving the PASS. These findings provide valuable guidance for surgeons to counsel patients realistically regarding their expectations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1118–1124

Aims. This study aimed to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) under distribution- and anchor-based methods for the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and range of movement (ROM) after open elbow arthrolysis (OEA). We also assessed the proportion of patients who achieved MCID and SCB; and identified the factors associated with achieving MCID. Methods. A cohort of 265 patients treated by OEA were included. The MEPI and ROM were evaluated at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Distribution-based MDC was calculated with confidence intervals (CIs) reflecting 80% (MDC 80), 90% (MDC 90), and 95% (MDC 95) certainty, and MCID with changes from baseline to follow-up. Anchor-based MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) were calculated using a five-level Likert satisfaction scale. Multivariate logistic regression of factors affecting MCID achievement was performed. Results. The MDC increased substantially based on selected CIs (MDC 80, MDC 90, and MDC 95), ranging from 5.0 to 7.6 points for the MEPI, and from 8.2° to 12.5° for ROM. The MCID of the MEPI were 8.3 points under distribution-based and 12.2 points under anchor-based methods; distribution- and anchor-based MCID of ROM were 14.1° and 25.0°. The SCB of the MEPI and ROM were 17.3 points and 43.4°, respectively. The proportion of the patients who attained anchor-based MCID for the MEPI and ROM were 74.0% and 94.7%, respectively; furthermore, 64.2% and 86.8% attained SCB. Non-dominant arm (p = 0.022), higher preoperative MEPI rating (p < 0.001), and postoperative visual analogue scale pain score (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of not achieving MCID for the MEPI, while atraumatic causes (p = 0.040) and higher preoperative ROM (p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for ROM. Conclusion. In patients undergoing OEA, the MCID for the increased MEPI is 12.2 points and 25° increased ROM. The SCB is 17.3 points and 43.3°, respectively. Future studies using the MEPI and ROM to assess OEA outcomes should report not only statistical significance but also clinical importance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):366–372

Aims. A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance. Methods. MCIDs were derived using the change difference method in a sample of 1,843 HA and 1,546 KA patients. An artificial neural network, a gradient boosting machine, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, ridge regression, elastic net, random forest, LR, and pre-surgery PROM scores were applied to predict MCID for the following PROMs: EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS). Results. Predictive performance of the best models per outcome ranged from 0.71 for HOOS-PS to 0.84 for EQ-VAS (HA sample). ML statistically significantly outperformed LR and pre-surgery PROM scores in two out of six cases. Conclusion. MCIDs can be predicted with reasonable performance. ML was able to outperform traditional methods, although only in a minority of cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):512–521

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimal important change (MIC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) according to patient satisfaction six months following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in a UK population. Methods. During a one-year period, 461 patients underwent a primary THA and completed preoperative and six-month FJS, with a mean age of 67.2 years (22 to 93). At six months, patient satisfaction was recorded as very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. The difference between patients recording neutral (n = 31) and satisfied (n = 101) was used to define the MCID. MIC for a cohort was defined as the change in the FJS for those patients declaring their outcome as satisfied, whereas receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the MIC for an individual and the PASS. Distribution-based methodology was used to calculate the MDC. Results. Using satisfaction as the anchor, the MCID for the FJS was 8.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7 to 15.9; p = 0.040), which was affirmed when adjusting for confounding. The MIC for the FJS for a cohort of patients was 17.7 (95% CI 13.7 to 21.7) and for an individual patient was 18. The MDC90 for the FJS was eight, meaning that 90% of patients scoring more than this will have experienced a real change that is beyond measurement error. The PASS threshold for the FJS was defined as 29. Conclusion. The MCID and MIC can be used respectively to assess whether there is a clinical difference between two groups, or whether a cohort or patient has had a meaningful change in their FJS. Both values were greater than measurement error (MDC90), suggesting a real change. The PASS threshold for the postoperative FJS can be used as a marker of achieving patient satisfaction following THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1759–1765

Aims. Acetabular fractures are associated with long-term morbidity. Our prospective cohort study sought to understand the recovery trajectory of this injury over five years. Methods. Eligible patients at a level I trauma centre were recruited into a longitudinal registry of surgical acetabular fractures between June 2004 and August 2019. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS), were recorded at baseline pre-injury recall and six months, one year, two years, and five years postoperatively. Comparative analyses were performed for elementary and associated fracture patterns. The proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was determined. The rate of, and time to, conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) was also established. Results. We recruited 251 patients (253 fractures), with a 4:1 male to female ratio and mean age of 46.1 years (SD 16.4). Associated fracture patterns accounted for 56.5% of fractures (n = 143). Trajectory analysis showed all timepoints had significant disability versus baseline, including final follow-up (p < 0.001). Elementary fractures had higher SF-36 PCS at six months (p = 0.023) and one year (p = 0.007) compared to associated fractures, but not at two years (p = 0.135) or five years (p = 0.631). The MCID in SF-36 PCS was observed in 37.3% of patients (69/185) between six months and one year, 26.9% of patients (39/145) between one and two years, and 23.3% of patients (20/86) between two and five years, highlighting the long recovery potential of these injuries. A significant proportion of patients failed to attain the MCID after five years (38.1%; 40/105). Conversion to THA occurred in 13.1% of patients (11/110 elementary and 22/143 associated fractures). Approximately two-thirds of THAs (21/33 patients; 63.6%) were performed within two years of index surgery. Conclusion. Acetabular fractures significantly impact physical function. Recovery trajectory is often elongated beyond one year, with two-thirds of our patients displaying persistent clinically relevant long-term disability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):69–76

Aims. To identify the responsiveness, minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimal clinical important change (MIC), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds in the 36-item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36) (v2) for each of the eight dimensions and the total score following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. There were 3,321 patients undergoing primary TKA with preoperative and one-year postoperative SF-36 scores. At one-year patients were asked how satisfied they were and “How much did the knee arthroplasty surgery improve the quality of your life?”, which was graded as: great, moderate, little (n = 277), none (n = 98), or worse. Results. Physical function, role limitations due to physical problems (‘role physical’), bodily pain, and the total score SF-36 scores demonstrated the greatest effect sizes (> 0.9). The MCID for each of SF-36 dimensions ranged from 1.7 for role emotional to 6.4 for bodily pain. The MICs for a cohort of patients ranged from -1.0 for general health to 11.1 for bodily pain. The MICs for an individual patient were marginally greater (one to two points) compared to those for a cohort, and ranging from 0.0 for general and mental health to 13.5 for physical function. The lowest PASS score threshold was associated with physical function (> 34 points) whereas the greatest threshold (> 69 points) was associated with mental health. Conclusion. The SF-36 is a responsive tool, and the estimates for MCID, MIC, and PASS thresholds that can be used to power studies, assess whether there has been a meaningful change in patients’ health-related quality of life, and can be used as a marker of achieving patient satisfaction following TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(7):477–483

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimal important change (MIC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) threshold in the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) according to patient satisfaction six months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. During a one-year period 484 patients underwent a primary TKA and completed preoperative and six-month FJS and OKS. At six months patients were asked, “How satisfied are you with your operated knee?” Their response was recorded as: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. The difference between patients recording neutral (n = 44) and satisfied (n = 153) was used to define the MCID. MIC for a cohort was defined as the change in the FJS for those patients declaring their outcome as satisfied, whereas receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the MIC for an individual and the PASS threshold. Distribution-based methodology was used to calculate the MDC. Results. Using satisfaction as the anchor question, the MCID for the FJS was 16.6 (95% confidence interval (CIs) 8.9 to 24.3; p < 0.001) and when adjusting for confounding this decreased to 13.7 points (95% CI 4.8 to 22.5; p < 0.001). The MIC for the FJS for a cohort of patients was 17.7 points and for an individual patient was 10 points. The MDC90 for the FGS was 12 points; where 90% of patients scoring more than this will have experienced a real change that is beyond measurement error. The PASS was defined as 22 points or more in the postoperative FJS. Conclusion. The estimates for MCID and MIC can be used to assess whether there is clinical difference between two groups and whether a cohort/patient has had a meaningful change in their FJS, respectively. The MDC90 of 12 points suggests a value lower than this may fall within measurement error. A postoperative FJS of 22 or more was predictive of achieving PASS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):846–854

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the meaningful values of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis in a university teaching hospital (Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh) (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019). Pre- and postoperative (one-year) data were prospectively collected for 3,181 patients (median age 69.9 years (interquartile range (IQR) 64.2 to 76.1); females, n = 1,745 (54.9%); median BMI 30.1 kg/m. 2. (IQR 26.6 to 34.2)). The reliability of the EQ-5D-3L was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the minimal important change (MIC) (cohort and individual), the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) predictive of satisfaction, and the minimal detectable change at 90% confidence intervals (MDC-90). Results. The EQ-5D-3L demonstrated good internal consistency with an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.75 (preoperative) and 0.88 (postoperative), respectively. The MCID for the Index score was 0.085 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.042 to 0.127) and EQ-VAS was 6.41 (95% CI 3.497 to 9.323). The MIC. COHORT. was 0.289 for the EQ-5D and 5.27 for the EQ-VAS. However, the MIC. INDIVIDUAL. for both the EQ-5D-3L Index (0.105) and EQ-VAS (-1) demonstrated poor-to-acceptable reliability. The MDC-90 was 0.023 for the EQ-5D-3L Index and 1.0 for the EQ-VAS. The PASS for the postoperative EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores predictive of patient satisfaction were 0.708 and 77.0, respectively. Conclusion. The meaningful values of the EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores can be used to measure clinically relevant changes in health-related quality of life in patients undergoing primary KA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(9):619–628

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate whether anterior pelvic plane-pelvic tilt (APP-PT) is associated with distinct hip pathomorphologies. We asked: is there a difference in APP-PT between young symptomatic patients being evaluated for joint preservation surgery and an asymptomatic control group? Does APP-PT vary among distinct acetabular and femoral pathomorphologies? And does APP-PT differ in symptomatic hips based on demographic factors?. Methods. This was an institutional review board-approved, single-centre, retrospective, case-control, comparative study, which included 388 symptomatic hips in 357 patients who presented to our tertiary centre for joint preservation between January 2011 and December 2015. Their mean age was 26 years (SD 2; 23 to 29) and 50% were female. They were allocated to 12 different morphological subgroups. The study group was compared with a control group of 20 asymptomatic hips in 20 patients. APP-PT was assessed in all patients based on supine anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using validated HipRecon software. Values in the two groups were compared using an independent-samples t-test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the influences of diagnoses and demographic factors on APP-PT. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for APP-PT was defined as > 1 SD. Results. There were no significant differences in APP-PT between the control group and the overall group (1.1° (SD 3.0°; -4.9° to 5.9°) vs 1.8° (SD 3.4°; -6.9° to 13.2°); p = 0.323). Acetabular retroversion and overcoverage groups showed higher mean APP-PTs compared with the control group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014) and were the only diagnoses with a significant influence on APP-PT in the stepwise multiple regression analysis. All differences were below the MCID. The age, sex, height, weight, and BMI showed no influence on APP-PT. Conclusion. APP-PT showed no radiologically significant variation across different pathomorphologies of the hip in patients being assessed for joint-preserving surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):3–10

Aims. The aims of this study were to assess mapping models to predict the three-level version of EuroQoL five-dimension utility index (EQ-5D-3L) from the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and validate these before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. A retrospective cohort of 5,857 patients was used to create the prediction models, and a second cohort of 721 patients from a different centre was used to validate the models, all of whom underwent TKA. Patient characteristics, BMI, OKS, and EQ-5D-3L were collected preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Generalized linear regression was used to formulate the prediction models. Results. There were significant correlations between the OKS and EQ-5D-3L preoperatively (r = 0.68; p < 0.001) and postoperatively (r = 0.77; p < 0.001) and for the change in the scores (r = 0.61; p < 0.001). Three different models (preoperative, postoperative, and change) were created. There were no significant differences between the actual and predicted mean EQ-5D-3L utilities at any timepoint or for change in the scores (p > 0.090) in the validation cohort. There was a significant correlation between the actual and predicted EQ-5D-3L utilities preoperatively (r = 0.63; p < 0.001) and postoperatively (r = 0.77; p < 0.001) and for the change in the scores (r = 0.56; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that a lower utility was overestimated, and higher utility was underestimated. The individual predicted EQ-5D-3L that was within ± 0.05 and ± 0.010 (minimal clinically important difference (MCID)) of the actual EQ-5D-3L varied between 13% to 35% and 26% to 64%, respectively, according to timepoint assessed and change in the scores, but was not significantly different between the modelling and validation cohorts (p ≥ 0.148). Conclusion. The OKS can be used to estimate EQ-5D-3L. Predicted individual patient utility error beyond the MCID varied from one-third to two-thirds depending on timepoint assessed, but the mean for a cohort did not differ and could be employed for this purpose. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):573–581

Aims. It is not known whether preservation of the capsule of the hip positively affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach (DAA-THA). A recent randomized controlled trial found no clinically significant difference at one year postoperatively. This study aimed to determine whether preservation of the anterolateral capsule and anatomical closure improve the outcome and revision rate, when compared with resection of the anterolateral capsule, at two years postoperatively. Methods. Two consecutive groups of patients whose operations were performed by the senior author were compared. The anterolateral capsule was resected in the first group of 430 patients between January 2012 and December 2014, and preserved and anatomically closed in the second group of 450 patients between July 2015 and December 2017. There were no other technical changes between the two groups. Patient characteristics, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and surgical data were collected from our database. PROM questionnaires, consisting of the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI-Hip), were collected two years postoperatively. Data were analyzed with generalized multiple regression analysis. Results. The characteristics, CCI, operating time, and length of stay were similar in both groups. There was significantly less blood loss in the capsular preservation group (p = 0.037). The revision rate (n = 3, (0.6%) in the resected group, and 1 (0.2%) in the preserved group) did not differ significantly (p = 0.295). Once adjusted for demographic and surgical factors, the preserved group had significantly worse PROMs: + 0.24 COMI-Hip (p < 0.001) and -1.6 OHS points (p = 0.017). However, the effect sizes were much smaller than the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of 0.95 and 5, respectively). The date of surgery (influencing, for instance, the surgeon’s age) was not a significant factor. Conclusion. Based on the MCID, the lower PROMs in the capsular preservation group do not seem to have clinical relevance. They do not, however, confirm the expected benefit of capsular preservation reported for the posterolateral approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):826–832

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the trajectory of recovery following fixation of tibial plateau fractures up to five-year follow-up, including simple (Schatzker I-IV) versus complex (Schatzker V-VI) fractures. Patients and Methods. Patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for tibial plateau fractures were enrolled into a prospective database. Functional outcome, using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS), was collected at baseline, six months, one year, and five years. The trajectory of recovery for complex fractures (Schatzker V and VI) was compared with simple fractures (Schatzker I to IV). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated between timepoints. In all, 182 patients were enrolled: 136 (74.7%) in simple and 46 (25.3%) in complex. There were 103 female patients and 79 male patients with a mean age of 45.8 years (15 to 86). Results. Mean SF-36 PCS improved significantly in both groups from six to 12 months (p < 0.001) and one to five years (simple, p = 0.008; complex, p = 0.007). In both groups, the baseline scores were not reached at five years. The SF-36 PCS was significantly higher in the simple group compared with the complex group at both six months (p = 0.007) and 12 months (p = 0.01), but not at five years (p = 0.17). Between each timepoint, approximately 50% or more of the patients in each group achieved an MCID in their score change, indicating a significant clinical change in condition. The complex group had a much larger drop off in the first six months, with comparable proportions achieving MCID at the subsequent time intervals. Conclusion. Tibial plateau fracture recovery was characterized overall by an initial decline in functional outcome from baseline, followed by a steep improvement from six to 12 months, and ongoing recovery up to five years. In simple patterns, patients tended to achieve a higher functional score by six months compared with the complex patterns. However, comparable functional scores between the groups achieved only at the five-year point suggest later recovery in the complex group. Function does not improve to baseline by five years in either group. This information is useful in counselling patients about the course of prospective recovery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1009–1014

Aims. Responsiveness and ceiling effects are key properties of an outcome score. No such data have been reported for the original English version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) at a follow-up of more than four months. The aim of this study was to identify the responsiveness and ceiling effects of the English version iHOT-12 in a series of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular hip pathology at a minimum of one year postoperatively. Methods. A total of 171 consecutive patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with a diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) under the care of a single surgeon between January 2013 and March 2017 were included. iHOT-12 and EuroQol 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) scores were available pre- and postoperatively. Effect size and ceiling effects for the iHOT-12 were calculated with subgroup analysis. Results. A total of 122 patients (71.3%) completed postoperative PROMs scores with median follow-up of 24.3 months (interquartile range (IQR) 17.2 to 33.5). The median total cohort iHOT-12 score improved significantly from 31.0 (IQR 20 to 58) preoperatively to 72.5 (IQR 47 to 90) postoperatively (p < 0.001). The effect size (Cohen’s d) was 1.59. In all, 33 patients (27%) scored within ten points (10%) of the maximum score and 38 patients (31.1%) scored within the previously reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the maximum score. Furthermore, nine (47%) male patients aged < 30 years scored within 10% of the maximum score and ten (53%) scored within the previously reported MCID of the maximum score. Conclusion. There is a previously unreported ceiling effect of the iHOT-12 at a minimum one-year follow-up which is particularly marked in young, male patients following hip arthroscopy for FAI. This tool may not have the maximum measurement required to capture the true outcome following this procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1010–1015

Objectives. We aimed first to summarise minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) after total hip (THR) or knee replacement (TKR) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Secondly, we aimed to improve the precision of MCID estimates by means of meta-analysis. Methods. We conducted a systematic review of English and non-English articles using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960–2011), EMBASE (1991–2011), Web of Science, Academic Search Premier and Science Direct. Bibliographies of included studies were searched in order to find additional studies. Search terms included MCID or minimal clinically important change, THR or TKR and Short-Form 36. We included longitudinal studies that estimated MCID of SF-36 after THR or TKR. Results. Three studies met our inclusion criteria, describing a distinct study population: primary THR, primary TKR and revision THR. No synthesis of study results can be given. Conclusions. Although we found MCIDs in HRQoL after THR or TKR have limited precision and are not validated using external criteria, these are still the best known estimates of MCIDs in HRQoL after THR and TKR to date. We therefore advise these MCIDs to be used as absolute thresholds, but with caution

Aims. It is not known whether change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) over time can be predicted by factors present at surgery, or early follow-up. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with changes in PROM status between two-year evaluation and medium-term follow-up. Patients and Methods. Patients undergoing Birmingham Hip Resurfacing completed the Veteran’s Rand 36 (VR-36), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Tegner Activity Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at two years and a minimum of three years. A change in score was assessed against minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between patient factors and deterioration in PASS status between follow-ups. Results. Overall, 18% of patients reported reductions in mHHS total score exceeding MCID, and 21% reported similar reductions for WOMAC function scores. Nonetheless, almost all patients remained above PASS thresholds for WOMAC function (98%) and mHHS (93%). Overall, 66% of patients with mHHS scores < PASS at two years reported scores > PASS at latest follow-up. Conversely, 6% of patients deteriorated from > PASS to < PASS between follow-ups. Multivariable modelling indicated body mass index (BMI) > 27 kg/m. 2. , VR-36 Physical Component Score (PCS) < 51, VR-36 Mental Component Score (MCS) > 55, mHHS < 84 at two years, female sex, and bone graft use predicted these deteriorating patients with 79% accuracy and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84. Conclusion. Due to largely acceptable results at a later follow-up, extensive monitoring of multiple PROMs is not recommended for Birmingham Hip Resurfacing patients unless they report borderline or unacceptable hip function at two years, are female, are overweight, or received a bone graft during surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1431–1437

Aims. Responsiveness to clinically important change is a key feature of any outcome measure. Throughout Europe, health-related quality of life following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is routinely measured with EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Question Short-Form (PROMIS-10 Global Health) score is a new general heath outcome tool which is thought to offer greater responsiveness. Our aim was to compare these two tools. Patients and Methods. We accessed data from a prospective multicentre cohort study in the United Kingdom, which evaluated outcomes following TKA. The median age of the 721 patients was 69.0 years (interquartile range, 63.3 to 74.6). There was an even division of sex, and approximately half were educated to secondary school level. The preoperative EQ-5D, PROMIS-10, and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were available and at three, six, and 12 months postoperatively. Internal responsiveness was assessed by standardized response mean (SRM) and effect size (Cohen’s d). External responsiveness was assessed by correlating change scores of the EQ-5D and PROMIS-10, with the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the OKS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the ability of change scores to discriminate between improved and non-improved patients. Results. All measures showed significant changes between the preoperative score and the various postoperative times (p < 0.001). Most improvement occurred during the first three months, with small but significant changes between three and six months, and no further change between six and 12 months postoperatively. SRM scores for EQ-5D, PROMIS-10, and OKS were large (> 0.8). ROC curves showed that both EQ-5D and PROMIS-10 were able to discriminate between patients who achieved the OKS MCID and those who did not (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.7 to 0.82). Conclusion. The PROMIS-10 physical health tool showed greater responsiveness to change than the EQ-5D, most probably due to the additional questions on physical health parameters that are more susceptible to modification following TKA. The EQ-5D was, however, shown to be sensitive to clinically meaningful change following TKA, and provides the additional ability to calculate health economic utility scores. It is likely, therefore, that EQ-5D will continue to be the global health metric of choice in the United Kingdom. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:832–837

The April 2015 Research Roundup360 looks at: MCID in grip strength and distal radial fracture; Experiencing rehab in a trial setting; Electrical stimulation and nerve recovery; Molecular diagnosis of TB?; Acetabular orientation: component and arthritis; Analgesia after knee arthroplasty; Bisphosphonate-associated femoral fractures