EP8.13 Defining MCID and MDC for iHOT-12 and EQ-5D in a young adult hip population using a population distribution-based approach

Clicks: 12
ID: 331005
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #107 of 444 articles by views in Journal of hip preservation surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 444 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Purpose This study aimed to define minimal clinically-important difference (MCID) and minimum detectable change (MDC) using baseline patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as opposed to change scores, eliminating influence of surgical outcome on the definition of improvement. Methods All patients with available baseline PROMs recorded in the UK Non-Arthroplasty Hip Registry (NAHR) up to November 2025 were identified. Revision procedures were excluded. Reliability for PROM scores were based on published figures (iHOT-12=0.89, EQ-5D-VAS=0.73, EQ-5D-Index=0.87). Standard deviation (SD) and standard error of the mean (SEM) were calculated for the total cohort and sub-groups of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) patients. 0.5xSD and 1xSEM measurements were compared, and an upper-bound approach used to define MCID. MDC was defined as 1.96xSEM (95% confidence). Results For the total cohort, iHOT-12 (n=15,429) SD was 19.30 and SEM was 6.40, resulting in a MCID of 9.7 and MDC of 12.5. For EQ-5D-VAS (n=16,123) SD was 20.95 and SEM was 10.89, resulting in a MCID of 10.9 and a MDC of 21.3. For EQ-5D-Index (n=16,107), SD was 0.2492 and SEM was 0.0898, resulting in a MCID of 0.12 and a MDC of 0.18. For the FAI cohort, iHOT-12 (n=6,789) SD was 18.34 and SEM was 6.08, resulting in MCID of 9.2 and MDC of 11.9. EQ-5D-VAS (n=7,018) SD was 20.82 and SEM was 10.8, resulting in MCID of 10.8 and MDC of 21.2. For EQ-5D-Index (n=7,000) SD was 0.2364 and SEM was 0.0852, resulting in MCID of 0.12 and MDC of 0.17 For the DDH cohort, iHOT-12 (n=1,431) SD was 17.66 and SEM was 5.86, resulting in MCID of 8.8 and MDC of 11.5. EQ-5D-VAS (n=1,456) SD was 20.92 and SEM was 10.87, resulting in MCID of 10.9 and MDC of 21.3. EQ-5D-Index (n=1,454) SD was 0.2489 and SEM was 0.0897, resulting in MCID of 0.12 and MDC of 0.18. Conclusion Our findings support the definition of MCID for the general young adult hip population as ≥10 for iHOT-12, ≥11 for EQ-5D-VAS and ≥0.12 for EQ-5D-Index and a MCID of ≥9 for iHOT-12 in FAI and DDH patients.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220380787 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors William Cawley, Richard Holleyman, Antonio Andrade, Vikas Khanduja, The Nahr Board, Marcus Bankes, Callum McBryde, Johan Witt, Ajay Malviya
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.394
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.394
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.