Changes Over a Decade in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Minimal Clinically Important Difference Reporting in Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: When used appropriately, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) provides a powerful tool for identifying meaningful improvements brought about by a given treatment, offering more clinically relevant information than frequentist statistical analysis. However, recent studies have shown inconsistent derivation methods and use of MCIDs. The goal of this study was to report the rate of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and MCIDs use in the literature and assess how this rate has changed over time. METHODS: All articles published in 2010 and 2020 reporting on total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty in The Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and The Journal of Arthroplasty were reviewed. In each reviewed article, every reported PROM and, if present, its corresponding MCID was recorded. These data were used to calculate the rate of reporting of each PROM and MCID. RESULTS: While the total number of articles on total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty reporting PROMs increased over time, the proportion of articles reporting PROMs decreased from 49.8% (131/263) in 2010 to 35.5% (194/546) in 2020 (P = .011). Of these articles that report PROMs, the proportion of articles reporting any MCID increased from 2.3% (3/131) in 2010 to 16.5% (32/194) in 2020 (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of reporting of MCIDs among articles relating to total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty that report PROMs has increased significantly between 2010 and 2020 but remains low. Continued emphasis on appropriate inclusion and value of MCIDs when PROMS are reported in clinical outcomes studies is needed.