Variability in Minimal Clinically Important Difference Calculation and Reporting in the Otolaryngology Literature

Abstract

ObjectiveBest practices for calculation of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of outcome measures include the use of complementary methodologies (broadly classified as anchor‐based and distribution‐based) and reporting of the MCID's predictive ability. We sought to determine MCID calculation and reporting patterns within the otolaryngology literature.MethodsA systematic search strategy of Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases was developed and implemented to identify studies reporting the determination of an MCID for an outcome measure. Studies specifically within the otolaryngology literature (defined as journals classified as “otorhinolaryngology” in the Journal Citation Reports database) were included. All those journals were additionally searched for relevant articles.ResultsThere were 35 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 88.6% reported MCID of a patient‐reported outcome measure and the remainder were for objective outcome measurements. Anchor‐based methods were used by 82.9% of studies and distribution‐based methods were used by 68.6% of studies. Of all studies, 31.4% utilized anchor‐based methods alone, 17.1% utilized distribution‐based methods alone, and 51.4% used both methods. Only 25.7% of studies reported the sensitivity (median: 60.8%, range: 40.5%–86.7%) and specificity (median: 80.4%, range: 63.5%–88.0%) of the MCID to detect patients experiencing clinically important change.ConclusionDeviation from best practices in MCID calculation and reporting exists within the otolaryngology literature, with almost half of all studies only using one method of MCID calculation and almost three‐quarters not reporting the predictive ability (sensitivity/specificity) of the calculated MCID. When predictive ability is reported, however, MCIDs appear to be more specific than sensitive.Level of EvidenceNA Laryngoscope, 2023