Metrics of Clinically Important Changes in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become a regularly used metric, there is little consensus on the methodology used to determine clinically relevant postoperative outcomes. We systematically reviewed the literature for studies that have identified metrics of clinical efficacy after total hip arthroplasty (THA) including minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), minimal detectable change (MDC), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB). MethodsA systematic review examining quantitative metrics for assessing clinical improvement with PROMs following THA was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the MEDLINE database from 2008 to 2020. Inclusion criteria included full texts, English language, primary THA with minimum 1-year follow-up, use of metrics for assessing clinical outcomes with PROMs, and primary derivations of those metrics. Sixteen studies (24,487 THA patients) met inclusion criteria and 11 different PROMs were reported. ResultsMCIDs were calculated using distribution methods in 7 studies (44%), anchor methods in 2 studies (13%), and both methods in 2 studies (13%). MDC was calculated in 2 studies, PASS was reported in 1 study using anchor-based method, and SCB was calculated in 1 study using anchor-based method. ConclusionThere is a lack of consistency in the literature regarding the use and interpretation of PROMs to assess patient satisfaction. MCID was the most frequently reported measure, while MDC, SCB, and PASS were used relatively infrequently. Method of derivation varied based on the PROM used; distribution method was more frequently used for MCID.