ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Defining score interpretation thresholds for clinical outcome assessments: a review of terminology and reporting recommendations.
Review in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining clinically meaningful values in the oxford hip score and factors associated with their achievement following aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Current methods for analyzing time-series patient-generated health data to assess treatment response: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe concept of 'score interpretation threshold' for understanding score differences of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) and terminology around this topic have evolved over several decades. Yet, considerable confusion regarding terminology remains, leading to potentially erroneous interpretation of COA results. This article sought to provide an updated overview of terminology and an assessment of trends to explore opportunities for harmonizing the field.
methodsA targeted literature review was conducted for review articles published 2016-September 2024 discussing terminology related to COA score interpretation thresholds, followed by a review of guidance by regulatory and reimbursement/payer stakeholders for specific terminology in this context. A targeted review of original research articles that were aimed at deriving interpretation thresholds was undertaken, spanning a five-year period (2016- Apr 2021) to explore potential trends regarding use of terms, acronyms, and definitions.
resultsAs expected, vast heterogeneity in terminology and definitions was observed across review articles and regulatory/reimbursement/payer guidelines. Across 318 original research articles, 39 different terms were identified, with 'minimal clinically important difference' (MCID) most frequently used (mentioned in 163 articles), which was more than twice as often as the next term ('minimal important difference'; MID), mentioned in 76 articles, followed by 'minimal important change' (MIC), mentioned in 54 articles. Articles also showed great variation in how thresholds were defined, derived, and applied. Frequently, authors failed to provide sufficient details on methods and application, making it difficult to interpret derived thresholds.
conclusionsCOA score interpretation threshold terminology is far from harmonized. Evidence is insufficient to derive specific recommendations on which terms to use. Instead, we present minimum reporting standards for defining thresholds to ensure that they are comprehensible and reproducible, regardless of the specific terms and acronyms used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.