PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 16, 2026Quality of Life Research0 citationsOpen Access

Selecting the optimal MIC for five patient-reported outcome measures in patients with upper extremity injuries, using a systematic search and step-by-step decision tree

SBS. G. J. Suus van BruggenAmsterdam NeuroscienceFOF. L. Floortje OppermanAmsterdam University Medical CentersEJE. P. Ilse JansmaAmsterdam Neuroscience

Key Points

  • The study aims to define optimal minimally important change (MIC) values for various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in upper extremity injuries.
  • Conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane until June 2024.
  • Identified studies estimating MICs for DASH, Q-DASH, MHQ, PRWE, and PROMIS-UE.
  • Evaluated MIC value credibility using a MIC credibility instrument and a step-by-step decision-making approach.
  • Analyzed consistency across identified MIC estimates and contextual factors affecting results.
  • Identified optimal MIC values: DASH 9.4, Q-DASH 7.4, PRWE 11.5, PROMIS-UE 4.7.
  • Eight out of eleven studies scored high on core credibility items.
  • All studies showed low scores on additional criteria regarding time intervals and anchor correlations.
  • Lack of available studies for the MHQ in upper extremity injury patients.

Abstract

To illustrate how optimal MIC values can be selected for PROMs using a systematic step-by-step approach. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, until June 2024 to identify all studies that estimated the MIC for the following PROMs in patients with upper extremity injuries: DASH, Q-DASH, MHQ, PRWE and PROMIS-UE. Credibility of the MIC values was examined using the MIC credibility instrument. The optimal MIC value was selected using a published systematic step-by-step approach, taking the credibility of the MIC studies, the correlation of the PROM change score with the anchor, the consistency of MIC values, and contextual factors (e.g. type of intervention) into account. Eleven studies were included. Eight studies scored high on the core credibility items, but all studies scored low on the additional criteria, regarding the appropriateness of the time interval and the correlation between the anchor and (change in) PROM scores. The most credible estimates per PROM were not consistent and there were not enough estimates per PROM to study contextual factors. The following optimal MIC values (among ranges of MIC values found) were selected: DASH 9.4 (6.7–13.0), Q-DASH 7.4 (3.5–11.7), PRWE 11.5 (9.2–56.0), and PROMIS-UE v1.2 4.7 (4.6–4.8). No studies were found on the MIC of the MHQ in Upper Extremity Injury (UEI) patients. This study serves as an example of how optimal MIC values can be carefully selected for a given PROM if multiple MIC values are reported in the literature.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bruggen et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b79e398166e15b153ab33ahttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-04152-1
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper