Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The effectiveness of spinal surgery as a treatment option is currently evaluated through the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) represents the smallest improvement considered worthwhile by a patient. The concept of an MCID is offered as the new standard for determining effectiveness of a given treatment and describing patient satisfaction in reference to that treatment. PURPOSE: Our goal is to review the various definitions of MCID and the methods available to determine MCID. STUDY DESIGN: The primary means of determining the MCID for a specific treatment are divided into anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Each method is further subdivided and examined in detail. METHODS: The overall limitations of the MCID concept are first identified. The basic assumptions, statistical biases, and shortcomings of each method are examined in detail. RESULTS: Each method of determining the MCID has specific shortcomings. Three general limitations in the accurate determination of an MCID have been identified: the multiplicity of MCID determinations, the loss of the patient's perspective, and the relationship between pretreatment baseline and posttreatment change scores. CONCLUSIONS: An ideal means of determining the MCID for a given intervention is yet to be determined. It is possible to develop a useful method provided that the assumptions and methodology are initially declared. Our efforts toward the establishment of a MCID will rely on the establishment of specific external criteria based on the symptoms of the patient and treatment intervention being evaluated.     

Exercise training for claudication.

Exercise advice is a well established component of the conservative management of intermittent claudication. Supervised programmes of exercise remain relatively uncommon and are provided mainly in secondary care. This review outlines the evidence for the effectiveness of different exercise regimens and the relative benefits of exercise therapy, where comparisons have been made with medical therapy, angioplasty and surgery.     

Implantatwahl bei trochanteren Femurfrakturen

Intramedullary implants have decisive advantages in the treatment of femoral fractures in the vicinity of the hip joint: a torque that leads to a less pronounced varus position, implantation in the course of the relevant forces, and primary stability in the case of both stable and unstable fractures. Because of the constant developments in the implants available and the frequent failure to differentiate between stable and unstable fractures, some of the recommendations in the literature seem to contradict each other. However, precise analysis of the literature data show that stable fractures can be adequately treated with any technique, while unstable fractures fall in the domain of nailing systems. Since it is not possible to distinguish unequivocally between stable and unstable fractures, all trochanteric and subtrochanteric femoral fractures should be treated with a cephalomedullary nailing system.