Logo of annrheumdAnnals of the Rheumatic DiseasesVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Jan; 64(1): 29–33.
Published online 2004 Jun 18. doi:  10.1136/ard.2004.022905
PMCID: PMC1755212

Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement


Background: In clinical trials, at the group level, results are usually reported as mean and standard deviation of the change in score, which is not meaningful for most readers.

Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) of pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods: A prospective multicentre 4 week cohort study involving 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. Patients assessed their response to treatment on a five point Likert scale at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. The MCII was estimated in a subgroup of 814 patients (603 with knee OA, 211 with hip OA).

Results: For knee and hip OA, MCII for absolute (and relative) changes were, respectively, (a) –19.9 mm (–40.8%) and –15.3 mm (–32.0%) for pain; (b) –18.3 mm (–39.0%) and –15.2 mm (–32.6%) for patient's global assessment; (c) –9.1 (–26.0%) and –7.9 (–21.1%) for WOMAC function subscale score. The MCII is affected by the initial degree of severity of the symptoms but not by age, disease duration, or sex.

Conclusion: Using criteria such as MCII in clinical trials would provide meaningful information which would help in interpreting the results by expressing them as a proportion of improved patients.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (87K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M, Brooks P, Strand V, Tugwell P, Altman R, Brandt K, Dougados M, Lequesne M. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol. 1997 Apr;24(4):799–802. [PubMed]
  • Altman R, Brandt K, Hochberg M, Moskowitz R, Bellamy N, Bloch DA, Buckwalter J, Dougados M, Ehrlich G, Lequesne M, et al. Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis: recommendations from a task force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society. Results from a workshop. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1996 Dec;4(4):217–243. [PubMed]
  • Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;54(12):1204–1217. [PubMed]
  • Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Jan;47(1):81–87. [PubMed]
  • Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407–415. [PubMed]
  • Schwartz Anna L, Meek Paula M, Nail Lillian M, Fargo James, Lundquist Margaret, Donofrio Melissa, Grainger Marilyn, Throckmorton Terry, Mateo Magdalena. Measurement of fatigue. determining minimally important clinical differences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Mar;55(3):239–244. [PubMed]
  • Altman R, Alarcón G, Appelrouth D, Bloch D, Borenstein D, Brandt K, Brown C, Cooke TD, Daniel W, Feldman D, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991 May;34(5):505–514. [PubMed]
  • Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K, Christy W, Cooke TD, Greenwald R, Hochberg M, et al. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum. 1986 Aug;29(8):1039–1049. [PubMed]
  • Wright James G. Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple. Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):597–598. [PubMed]
  • Gold E Richard. SARS genome patent: symptom or disease? Lancet. 2003 Jun 14;361(9374):2002–2003. [PubMed]
  • Streiner David L. Breaking up is hard to do: the heartbreak of dichotomizing continuous data. Can J Psychiatry. 2002 Apr;47(3):262–266. [PubMed]
  • Crosby Ross D, Kolotkin Ronette L, Williams G Rhys. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 May;56(5):395–407. [PubMed]
  • Beaton Dorcas E. Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):593–596. [PubMed]
  • Bellamy N, Carette S, Ford PM, Kean WF, le Riche NG, Lussier A, Wells GA, Campbell J. Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials--results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise. J Rheumatol. 1992 Mar;19(3):451–457. [PubMed]
  • Ehrich EW, Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bolognese JA, Seidenberg BC, Bellamy N. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000 Nov;27(11):2635–2641. [PubMed]
  • Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther. 1998 Nov;78(11):1197–1207. [PubMed]
  • Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983 Mar;8(2):141–144. [PubMed]

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
 Aspects of the cumulative distribution function used to determine the MCII (changes in pain score in patients with knee OA; n = 265). Among patients considering their response to treatment as good on a five point Likert scale, 75% experienced ...
Figure 2
 Patients' assessment of their response to treatment.

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group


Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...