Skip to content

Patients › General-Health

Outcome scores: what they measure, and what they don't

PDF Evidence

What PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures) like the DASH, QuickDASH, SPADI, ASES and PRWE actually are, and how to read your own score. They exist to track how YOUR symptoms and function change over time, and to compare groups of patients in research. They are not a test that decides what treatment you should have — a score does not diagnose anything, and two people with the same number can need completely different things. Covers what the numbers mean, why a change matters more than a single reading, what a 'minimal clinically important difference' is, and the limits of a questionnaire.

Updated Oct 202620 citations

What it is

A patient-reported outcome measure, or PROM, is a questionnaire about your own health. You fill it in yourself. It asks how you feel and what you can do in daily life. No test or scan can capture that view, because only you know it [1].

These questionnaires have been around since at least the 1960s [2]. They are standardised and validated, which means the questions are set in advance and tested to make sure they measure what they claim to measure [3]. A concrete example: a shoulder questionnaire might ask how much trouble you have reaching a high shelf or getting dressed. Your answers turn into a score, and that score can be tracked over time.

Why does your doctor use them? Because the usual physical checks are less reliable than you might think. Measuring how far a joint moves, or how strong it is, does not always reflect how you actually feel and function [4]. Questionnaires are also useful for shared decisions about your care and for routine check-ups after surgery [5].

There are different types. Some focus on one joint or condition, like a shoulder arthritis index. Others, such as the NIH PROMIS measures, cover general symptoms and function [6]. The same questions can come by text message on a mobile phone or on paper, and both give comparable scores [7].

One thing to know: your score is an average picture, not a personal verdict. Researchers are working on better ways to report how many patients reach a level of change that actually matters in daily life, rather than relying on average scores alone [8].

Why it matters

A score from a questionnaire does two different jobs, and it helps to know which one is which.

The first job is following you. When you fill in the same questionnaire before and after treatment, your scores trace your own progress over time. That picture belongs to you alone. It shows whether things are moving in the right direction for you, and it gives you and your doctor something concrete to look at together when you make decisions about your care [9]. Your own result is most useful as a marker of your own change, not as a score to be ranked against other people.

The second job is comparing groups. When many patients fill in the same questionnaires, their answers can be pooled so that treatments and services can be judged across whole populations [10]. This is how the wider health system learns which approaches work well for people in general. Collecting these scores routinely, and sharing them with patients as care decisions are made, is described as the future of healthcare that puts patient views at the centre [11].

It is worth knowing that this shift is still under way. Only 57% of primary medical providers use these questionnaires in their practice, and much of the information gathered so far has been used for research rather than for day-to-day clinical decisions [12]. The move towards routine use has also been driven largely by researchers and funders, and has not always focused on improving care from the patient's point of view [13].

So when you are asked to complete one of these questionnaires, the most meaningful use of your answers is close to home. They record how you feel and what you can do, in your own words, at that moment. Over time they show your change. That is the job that matters for you.

What the results mean

So you have a score in front of you. What does the number actually tell you?

First, which way is better? It depends on the questionnaire. The form itself, or the person who gave it to you, will tell you which way round it runs. Do not assume one direction applies to all scores.

Second, how big a change matters? A small shift on paper may not be a change you would notice in daily life. Researchers use the term "minimal clinically important difference" for the smallest change a patient would actually feel. There is no single threshold that works for every score or every group of patients, because values vary between hospitals and patient populations [14]. So a change worth noticing for one questionnaire cannot simply be copied onto another.

Third, one score on its own says less than the same score measured again later. A single result is a snapshot. The pattern over time is what shows your progress. For that pattern to mean anything, the questionnaire needs to give similar answers when nothing has changed, and to move when your health does [15].

A few cautions worth knowing. A difference that looks real on paper may not be a difference you would feel, because statistical significance does not always match what matters in daily life [15]. And many studies of these scores do not report the full range of uncertainty around their results, or say in advance what size of change would count as meaningful [16]. That is a limitation of the research, not a reason to dismiss your own scores.

When a study does report how many patients reached a level of change that matters, that proportion tells you more than an average score alone [8]. Your own care team can help you read your result in that light, alongside how you actually feel and what you can do.

What it can't tell you

A questionnaire score does not diagnose anything. It records how you feel on the day you fill it in. It cannot tell you what is wrong, and it cannot decide which treatment you should have. Those decisions belong to you and your doctor together, using the score as one piece of information among many.

A single result is also not a verdict on how well you are doing. The questions are fixed, so they may miss what matters most to you. If the questionnaire does not cover the part of your health that treatment is meant to help, a real improvement can go unnoticed [17]. Scores can also bunch up at the very top or bottom of the scale, which means two people with very different lives can land on the same number.

Group averages hide individual stories. When results from many patients are pooled, the range of experiences between them disappears from view. Your own path may sit well outside that average, in either direction, and that is normal.

There are honest limits in the research itself. The way these scores are collected is not uniform across the world's registries, which affects how well results can be compared [18]. The questionnaires still need further testing to fill gaps in what we know about how they measure [19]. And the thresholds used to judge whether a change matters vary widely, because different methods of calculating them give very different values [20]. There is no single threshold that works everywhere, for any score [14].

None of this makes your answers less useful. It means a score is a conversation starter, not a conclusion. Bring your own account of what you can do and how you feel, and treat the number as one part of that picture.

The bottom line

A questionnaire score is good for one thing: showing how you feel and what you can do over time. It is not a diagnosis, a verdict, or a promise about your future. Use it as one piece of information alongside your own account of daily life. The one thing worth remembering: the pattern across several questionnaires matters more than any single number.

Reviewed by AI synthesis (v2) — pending human review · 9 September 2026.

Want the clinical detail? Read the clinician version.

Talk to your treating clinician for advice specific to you.

For an appointment with the CQ Hand + Upper Limb team, ask your GP about a referral or visit www.cqupperlimb.com.

References
  1. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have arrived in sports and exercise medicine: Why do they matter?. *British Journal of Sports Medicine*. 2015. 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093707
  2. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. *Health Expectations*. 2021. 10.1111/hex.13254
  3. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. *BMJ*. 2010. 10.1136/bmj.c186
  4. Physical outcome measures: The role of strength and range of motion in orthopaedic research. *Injury*. 2020. 10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.017
  5. Meaningful Clinical Applications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedics. *Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery*. 2020. 10.2106/jbjs.20.00624
  6. Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Measures in Orthopaedic Specialties: Results of a Scoping Review for 2018 to 2022. *Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons*. 2025. 10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00432
  7. Collection of patient-reported outcomes; - text messages on mobile phones provide valid scores and high response rates. *BMC Medical Research Methodology*. 2014. 10.1186/1471-2288-14-52
  8. A Call for a Standardized Approach to Reporting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. *Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery*. 2021. 10.2106/jbjs.21.00030
  9. Integrating Patient-reported Outcomes Into Orthopaedic Clinical Practice: Proof of Concept From FORCE-TJR. *Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research*. 2013. 10.1007/s11999-013-3143-z
  10. The Importance of Outcome Measurement in Orthopaedics. *Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research*. 2013. 10.1007/s11999-013-3224-z
  11. Value-based Healthcare: Patient-reported Outcomes in Clinical Decision Making. *Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research*. 2016. 10.1007/s11999-016-4813-4
  12. THE USE OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES BY PRIMARY MEDICAL PROVIDERS IN THE PEDIATRIC SPORTS POPULATION. *Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine*. 2019. 10.1177/2325967119s00107
  13. Patient reported outcome measures in practice. *BMJ*. 2015. 10.1136/bmj.g7818
  14. Does Calculation of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference Make Sense? Ways to Improve. *Arthroscopy*. 2024. 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.11.007
  15. Guidelines for Proper Reporting of Clinical Significance, Including Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Maximal Outcome Improvement. *Arthroscopy*. 2022. 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.08.020
  16. Interpreting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Surgery. *Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery*. 2020. 10.2106/jbjs.20.00474
  17. The right measure for the right question: A framework for domain‐matched patient‐reported outcome measure selection in knee arthroplasty research. *Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy*. 2026. 10.1002/ksa.70620
  18. CORR Insights®: Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations. *Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research*. 2021. 10.1097/corr.0000000000001918
  19. Assessing the Quality of Available Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Intermittent Claudication: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Checklist. *European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery*. 2015. 10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.12.002
  20. The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: Response. *The American Journal of Sports Medicine*. 2023. 10.1177/03635465231189222
Evidence & references

This is the clinical evidence summary written for health professionals. It is technical, and it lists the research this page was built from. You do not need to read it to understand your treatment or to make a decision about it.

Overview

  • Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are critical for capturing the patient's perspective on health status, which cannot be observed through clinical tests or imaging [37].
  • The term PROM is a relatively new designation for a range of measures that have existed since at least the 1960s [90].
  • Standardized health-related outcome measures require evidence for change and a way to interpret change within individuals or difference between groups [4].
  • The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) defines the smallest amount an outcome must change to be meaningful to patients [85].
  • The minimum clinically important difference, the standard error of measurement, and the minimum detectable change are proposed as indicators for the clinical interpretation of test scores [1].
  • A standardized reporting approach for PROMs incorporates the minimum clinically important difference and the patient acceptable symptom state to report the proportion of patients achieving clinical importance rather than relying solely on mean changes [18].
  • An appropriate and validated measure that is suitable for both the particular study population and the reason for collecting the PROMs data should be chosen [3].
  • When the domain of the chosen PROM does not correspond to the domain addressed by the research question, clinically meaningful differences may go undetected, producing false-negative results [36].
  • Lack of consensus in the literature has led to confusion about which measurement properties are relevant, which concepts they represent, and how to assess these measurement properties in terms of design requirements and preferred statistical methods [28].
  • Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how the results of a study inform us about the quality of the outcome measurement instrument at issue [2].
  • Recommendations for the selection of patient assessed measures of health outcome are needed [16].
  • Further studies are needed to provide validated outcome measures to ensure accuracy of the reported results and conclusions [17].
  • There are a number of challenges in using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice [43].
  • Currently there is no convincing evidence to support the routine use of patient-based outcome measures in hand surgeons’ practices [44].
  • Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using them can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value [75].
  • Reasons for limited PROM use include a lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs and the perception that it is too time-consuming to add to regular clinical routine [78].
  • Limitations of PROM use shed light on why PROM use may not always improve patient outcomes and provide considerations for the design and implementation of future PROM initiatives [86].
  • Successful implementation of patient-reported outcome measures should be tailored by identifying and addressing potential barriers according to setting [11].
  • PROMIS measures are efficient and precise tools, and their use is expected to continue to increase across medical and surgical specialties as health systems and payers expand their definition of healthcare quality to include patient-reported health outcomes [88].

How It Works

Interpretation and Clinical Thresholds

  • The minimum clinically important difference, standard error of measurement, and minimum detectable change are proposed as indicators for the clinical interpretation of test scores [1].
  • Clinicians must be cautious in accepting a minimal clinically important difference score at face value due to the wide variability of established scores available for a single outcome scale [6].
  • The instrument for evaluating anchor-based estimates of minimal important differences includes five core criteria and additional criteria for transition rating anchors [31].
  • The Forgotten Joint Score shows moderate-to-strong correlations with established anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patient-reported outcome measures, supporting construct validity [51].
  • Clinically meaningful thresholds have been reported for the Forgotten Joint Score, supporting clinical interpretability [51].
  • The magnitude of responsiveness over time for the Forgotten Joint Score cannot be fully characterized because of limited reporting of longitudinal effect sizes [51].

Reliability and Measurement Properties

  • The two-way mixed-effect analysis of variance model with interaction for the absolute agreement between single scores is recommended to assess test-retest reliability for patient-reported outcome measures [5].
  • Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how results inform the quality of the outcome measurement instrument [2].
  • The Patient Outcomes of Surgery-Hand/Arm questionnaire demonstrated acceptability, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change [20].
  • Shoulder questionnaires with coefficients greater than 0.91 indicate good test-retest reliability for interpreting change scores for individual patients [24].
  • The DASH and Boston Questionnaire are reliable based on test-retest data [40].
  • The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System item banks demonstrated good reliability across most of the score distributions [39].
  • The test-retest reliability of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was high for all five subscales, with an interclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.8 to 0.9 [62].
  • The French translation of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index is valid, reliable, and responsive to change [63].
  • The MOS short form health survey (SF-36) scales met required internal consistency criteria with Cronbach alpha coefficients equaling or exceeding 0.70 [57].
  • The assessment tool for brachial plexus regional anesthesia performance demonstrated construct validity by reliably discriminating between different levels of training [69].
  • The DASH questionnaire outcomes support its construct validity when correlated to the SF-36 [79].

Validity and Standardization

  • An appropriate and validated measure suitable for the particular study population and the reason for collecting patient-reported outcome measures data should be chosen [3].
  • The DASH is a useful instrument for outcome evaluation [41].
  • The DASH questionnaire is widely accepted in everyday medical practice as a tool to evaluate upper limb function [76].
  • The NIH PROMIS network derived a consensus-based framework for self-reported health and systematically reviewed available instruments and datasets addressing initial PROMIS domains [77].
  • The outcomes of the study support the construct validity of the DASH [79].
  • Standardization in the use of outcome measurement instruments is needed [8].
  • No key measure was identified to capture functional status in advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice, with 15 different tools utilized, highlighting the need for greater standardization [30].
  • All patient-reported outcome measures for intermittent claudication require further validation studies to fill gaps in their measurement properties [38].
  • Predictive validity assessment is planned for three newly developed implementation outcome measures [81].

Data Collection and Administration

  • The current data collection of patient-reported outcome measures is neither uniform nor complete across the world's registries, which may impact data validity and the ability to compare outcomes [7].
  • Scores of tools to measure outcomes that matter to patients have been developed over the past 30 years but few are used routinely at the point of care [14].
  • Outcomes assessed on numeric rating scales and reported with text-messages on mobile phones or with questionnaires completed with pen and paper provide comparable scores [13].
  • For symptom severity and functional assessments, the score for each query may range from 1 to 5, and the sum of each mean score for each query was used to characterize the overall outcome score [9].
  • Proxy-reported outcomes reliably assess physical and pain-related domains in older adult patients with traumatic orthopaedic injuries [83].
  • Additional strategies are needed to improve accuracy in more subjective domains when using proxy-reported outcomes [83].

Physical vs. Patient-Reported Measures

  • Physical outcome measures are being changed for the use of patient reported outcomes, and range of motion and strength are not as reliable measures as one would think [25].
  • To assess pain, the clinician or the researcher must use the most appropriate measure for the given situation, considering factors such as reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change [66].

How It Is Used

  • Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how study results inform the quality of an outcome measurement instrument [2].
  • Standardized health-related outcome measures require evidence for change and a method to interpret change within individuals or difference between groups [4].
  • Current data collection of patient-reported outcome measures is neither uniform nor complete across the world's registries, which may impact data validity and the ability to compare outcomes [7].
  • Standardization in the use of outcome measurement instruments is advocated [8].
  • In symptom severity and functional assessments, scores may range from 1 to 5, and the sum of each mean score for each query is used to characterize the overall outcome score [9].
  • Investigators can choose thresholds to dichotomize responses on health-related quality of life based on absolute scores or change scores to facilitate interpretation [10].
  • The minimal important difference is not an immutable characteristic but may vary by population and context, and no one minimal important difference may be valid for all study applications [12].
  • High variability in scale choice and the use of measures not validated in pediatrics make comparative outcomes research difficult [15].
  • Integrating standardized patient-reported outcomes into routine orthopaedic visits is feasible and improves practice efficiency by providing actionable objective data for shared decision-making [22].
  • The validity and reliability of patient reported outcome measures can be assessed using methods reviewed in the literature [26].
  • Routine use of patient reported outcome measures has the potential to help transform healthcare [32].
  • A protocol for a randomized controlled trial was presented to assess the impact of a tool on decision quality, level of shared decision-making, and patient and process outcomes in total joint replacement [33].
  • Clinicians should consider the quality of measures both in their own practice and when critically appraising evidence [34].
  • Patients who received custom and off-the-shelf unicompartmental knee arthroplasty demonstrated comparable absolute patient-reported outcome measure scores, delta scores, and rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference across all metrics [35].
  • The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire is a useful instrument for outcome evaluation [41].
  • The number of given questionnaires should be limited to maintain reliability when designing research trials to avoid potential misleading results [42].
  • There are challenges in using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice [43].
  • There is no convincing evidence to support the routine use of patient-based outcome measures in hand surgeons’ practices [44].
  • Comparative effectiveness research requires accurate assessments of patient numbers, follow-up completeness, clinical outcomes, and care settings [64].
  • The majority of interventional studies reporting patient-reported outcome measures do not report confidence intervals around between-group differences in outcome and do not define a clinically meaningful difference [67].
  • The FDA evaluates patient-reported outcome instruments used as effectiveness endpoints in clinical trials and sponsors can use study results to support claims in approved product labeling [68].
  • The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 20-item physical functioning short form can be useful for assessing physical functioning in clinical trials and observational studies [70].
  • Patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures are used in research and clinical practice [71].
  • Limiting follow-up to automated methods may transform the way that outcome-based research is designed and conducted to provide substantially better research value in large prospective cohorts [72].
  • The impact of the routine use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice on the process of care, patients' and professionals' experiences of care, and health outcomes is assessed [74].
  • Both Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System and legacy scores are collected for tracking patient outcomes and research purposes [80].
  • Patient-reported outcomes should be collected routinely, preferably via registries using computerized adaptive technology, to enable accurate comparisons and shared decision-making [82].

Interpreting the Results

Interpretation Frameworks and Thresholds

  • The minimum clinically important difference (MCID), standard error of measurement, and minimum detectable change are proposed as indicators for the clinical interpretation of test scores [1].
  • Investigators can choose thresholds to dichotomize responses on health-related quality of life (HRQL) based on absolute scores or change scores to facilitate interpretation [10].
  • The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is useful for judging the magnitude of benefit when comparing two treatments, calculating sample size, making inferences about the percentage of patients improved by a therapeutic intervention, and making cost-effectiveness comparisons [52].
  • Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) need to be responsive, reliable, and validated, and measures of clinical significance such as MCID, patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) are essential for conveying patient satisfaction because statistically significant differences may not equate to clinically important differences [54].
  • A standardized reporting of PROMs that incorporates the MCID and PASS is proposed, introducing a "clinical relevance ratio" to report the proportion of patients achieving clinical importance rather than relying solely on mean changes [18].
  • The MCID is a low bar that patients do not seek when undergoing surgery; instead, they aim for substantial clinical benefit or a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) [29].

Properties and Variability of MCID

  • Clinicians must be cautious in accepting an MCID score at face value given the wide variability of established MCID scores available for a single outcome scale [6].
  • The minimal important difference (MID) is not an immutable characteristic but may vary by population and context, and no one MID may be valid for all study applications [12].
  • The MCID is a point estimate that should always be reported with its associated 95% confidence interval, as there is no basis for considering a sample-derived MCID a singular threshold to be crossed [21].
  • The MCID is an imperfect solution to a complicated problem, and different methods used to calculate MCID lead to highly heterogeneous values [23].
  • The calculation of the MCID needs to be correlated with changes in scores on the rating scale and external anchors [46].
  • The recommended approach for estimating the MID is to use several anchor-based methods with relevant clinical or patient-based indicators, examine various distribution-based estimates (i.e., effect size, standardized response mean, standard error of measurement) as supportive information, and then triangulate on a single value or small range of values [19].
  • A systematic approach to triangulate on the MCID using both distribution-based and anchor-based methods has been described [27].

Reliability and Responsiveness

  • To assess test-retest reliability for patient-reported outcome measures, the two-way mixed-effect analysis of variance model with interaction for the absolute agreement between single scores is recommended [5].
  • The DASH showed good sensitivity to change at 12 weeks with effect size and standardized response mean similar to the CTQ functional status scale [59].
  • The Patient Evaluation Measure is more responsive to change than the DASH score, with an effect size of 0.97 compared to 0.49 for the DASH [49].
  • Standardized questionnaires were more sensitive to the clinical change produced by carpal tunnel surgery than many commonly performed physical measures of outcome [65].
  • The Pos-Hand/Arm questionnaire demonstrated acceptability, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change [20].
  • Other shoulder questionnaires had coefficients greater than 0.91, indicating good test-retest reliability for interpreting change scores for individual patients [24].

Standardization and Data Collection

  • The current data collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is neither uniform nor complete across the world's registries, which may impact data validity and the ability to compare outcomes [7].
  • There is a plea for more standardization in the use of outcome measurement instruments [8].
  • The high variability in scale choice and the use of measures not validated in pediatrics make comparative outcomes research difficult [15].
  • No key measure was identified to capture functional status, with 15 different tools utilized, highlighting the need for greater standardization of outcome measurement in musculoskeletal clinical practice, service evaluation, and research [30].
  • Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has the potential to help transform healthcare [32].

Specific Score Interpretations and Modalities

  • A decrease of 1.04 or more in the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) score may indicate a clinically important change in a patient’s state of health [58].
  • Differences were noted between Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, with paper scores being significantly higher than electronic scores [55].
  • The median SF-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS) of 50.0 was 0.9 points below the Dutch normative population score, a difference that may not be clinically important [47].
  • Patients who received custom and off-the-shelf (OTS) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) demonstrated comparable absolute PROM scores, delta scores, and rates of achieving MCID across all metrics [35].
  • Scales converted to a percentage change yielded the best accuracy in predicting adequate relief, with balanced sensitivity and specificity [60].

Limitations and Pitfalls

Measurement Properties and Reliability

  • Clinicians must be cautious in accepting a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) score at face value given the wide variability of established MCID scores available for a single outcome scale [6].
  • The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an imperfect solution to a complicated problem, and different methods used to calculate MCID lead to highly heterogeneous values [23].
  • The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a point estimate that should always be reported with its associated 95% confidence interval, as there is no basis for considering a sample-derived MCID a singular threshold to be crossed [21].
  • All patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) require further validation studies to fill the gaps in their measurement properties [38].
  • The authors plea for more standardization in the use of outcome measurement instruments [8].

Interpretation and Clinical Significance

  • The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a low bar that patients do not seek when undergoing surgery; instead, they aim for substantial clinical benefit or a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) [29].
  • Because of its confounding effect on measuring physical function, functional demand should be assessed and included in models using PROMs before and after surgery [89].
  • MCIDs expressed as effect sizes reduce bias, which mainly results from dependency on the baseline score [73].
  • Estimates of reliability were based on the actual size of test-retest differences, in kilograms of grip strength, required to detect a genuine change in grip rather than chance differences due to measurement error [84].

Implementation and Data Quality

  • The instance of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data and its potential to bias clinical research can be minimised by implementing thoughtful design, rigorous methodology and transparent reporting strategies [87].
  • The number of given questionnaires should be limited to maintain reliability [42].
  • Only 57% of primary medical providers are using patient reported outcome measures within their practice, with the information largely used for research rather than clinical decision-making [50].

Key Evidence

  • [L5] The authors propose using the minimum clinically important difference, the standard error of measurement, and the minimum detectable change as indicators for the clinical interpretation of test scores. [1] (10.1136/bjsports-2012-091704)
  • [Paper] Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how the results of a study inform us about the quality of the outcome measurement instrument at issue. [2] (10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5)
  • [Paper] An appropriate and validated measure that is suitable for both the particular study population and the reason for collecting the PROMs data should be chosen. [3] (10.1136/bmj.c186)
  • [L4] Standardized health-related outcome measures require evidence for change and a way to interpret change within individuals or difference between groups. [4] (10.1016/j.rdc.2018.01.011)
  • [L5] To assess test-retest reliability for patient-reported outcome measures, the two-way mixed-effect analysis of variance model with interaction for the absolute agreement between single scores is recommended. [5] (10.1007/s11136-018-2076-0)
  • [L5] Clinicians must be cautious in accepting an MCID score at face value given the wide variability of established MCID scores available for a single outcome scale. [6] (10.1179/2042618612y.0000000001)
  • [L4] The current data collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is neither uniform nor complete across the world's registries, which may impact data validity and the ability to compare outcomes. [7] (10.1097/corr.0000000000001918)
  • [L5] The authors plea for more standardization in the use of outcome measurement instruments. [8] (10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143)
  • [L5] For each query in the symptom severity and functional assessments the score may range from 1 to 5, and the sum of each mean score for each query was used to characterize the overall outcome score. [9] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.08.002)
  • [L5] Investigators can choose thresholds to dichotomize responses on HRQL based on absolute scores or change scores to facilitate interpretation. [10] (10.1186/1477-7525-4-62)
  • [L2] Successful implementation of patient-reported outcome measures should be tailored by identifying and addressing potential barriers according to setting. [11] (10.1177/0269216313491619)
  • [L5] The minimal important difference (MID) is not an immutable characteristic but may vary by population and context, and no one MID may be valid for all study applications. [12] (10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012)
  • [L4] Outcomes assessed on numeric rating scales and reported with text-messages on mobile phones or with questionnaires completed with pen and paper provide comparable scores. [13] (10.1186/1471-2288-14-52)
  • [L5] Scores of tools to measure outcomes that matter to patients have been developed over the past 30 years but few are used routinely at the point of care. [14] (10.1136/bmj.g7818)
  • [L4] The high variability in scale choice and the use of measures not validated in pediatrics make comparative outcomes research difficult. [15] (10.1177/2325967119s00036)
  • [L4] Recommendations for the selection of patient assessed measures of health outcome are needed. [16] (10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1417)
  • [L2] Further studies are needed to provide validated outcome measures to ensure accuracy of the reported results and conclusions. [17] (10.1016/j.injury.2019.07.002)
  • [L5] The authors propose a standardized reporting of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that incorporates the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), introducing a 'clinical relevance ratio' to report the proportion of patients achieving clinical importance rather than relying solely on mean changes. [18] (10.2106/jbjs.21.00030)
  • [L5] The recommended approach is to estimate the minimal important difference based on several anchor-based methods, with relevant clinical or patient-based indicators, and to examine various distribution-based estimates (i.e., effect size, standardized response mean, standard error of measurement) as supportive information, and then to triangulate on a single value or small range of values for the MID. [19] (10.1186/1477-7525-4-70)
  • [Paper] Findings confirmed the acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness to clinical change of the questionnaire. [20] (10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.06.002)
  • [L5] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) is a point estimate that should always be reported with its associated 95% CI, as there is no basis for considering a sample-derived MCID a singular threshold to be crossed. [21] (10.1177/03635465231189223)
  • [L4] The authors conclude that integrating standardized patient-reported outcomes into routine orthopaedic visits is feasible and improves practice efficiency by providing actionable objective data for shared decision-making. [22] (10.1007/s11999-013-3143-z)
  • [L5] The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an imperfect solution to a complicated problem, and different methods used to calculate MCID lead to highly heterogeneous values. [23] (10.1177/03635465231189222)
  • [Paper] The other shoulder questionnaires had coefficients greater than 0.91, indicating good test-retest reliability for interpreting change scores for individual patients. [24] (10.1016/s1058-2746(98)90002-7)
  • [Paper] Physical outcome measures are being changed for the use of patient reported outcomes, and range of motion and strength are not as reliable measures as one would think. [25] (10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.017)
  • [L5] This paper reviews the current literature on how to assess the validity and reliability of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). [26] (10.1177/2050640614558345)
  • [L5] The authors describe a systematic approach to triangulate on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) using both distribution-based and anchor-based methods. [27] (10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.008)
  • [L5] Lack of consensus in the literature has lead to confusion about which measurement properties are relevant, which concepts they represent, and how to assess these measurement properties in terms of design requirements and preferred statistical methods. [28] (10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006)
  • [L5] The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a low bar that patients do not seek when undergoing surgery; instead, they aim for substantial clinical benefit or a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). [29] (10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.014)
  • [L2] No key measure was identified to capture functional status, with 15 different tools utilized, highlighting the need for greater standardization of outcome measurement in musculoskeletal clinical practice, service evaluation and research. [30] (10.1002/msc.1200)
  • [L4] The instrument includes five core criteria and additional criteria for transition rating anchors. [31] (10.1136/bmj.m1714)
  • [L5] Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has the potential to help transform healthcare. [32] (10.1136/bmj.f167)
  • [Paper] We present the protocol for a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the impact of this tool on decision quality, level of shared decision-making, and patient and process outcomes. [33] (10.1002/jor.24614)
  • [Paper] Clinicians should consider the quality of measures both in their own practice and when critically appraising evidence. [34] (10.1016/j.bjps.2017.11.015)
  • [L3] Patients who received custom and OTS UKA demonstrated comparable absolute PROM scores, delta scores, and rates of achieving MCID across all metrics. [35] (10.1016/j.arth.2026.09.008)
  • [Paper] When the domain of the chosen PROM does not correspond to the domain addressed by the research question, clinically meaningful differences may go undetected, producing false-negative results. [36] (10.1002/ksa.70620)
  • [L5] This editorial argues that Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are critical for capturing the patient's perspective on health status, which cannot be observed through clinical tests or imaging. [37] (10.1136/bjsports-2014-093707)
  • [L1] However, all PROMs require further validation studies to fill the gaps in their measurement properties. [38] (10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.12.002)
  • [L5] All item banks demonstrated good reliability across most of the score distributions. [39] (10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011)
  • [L2] Test–retest data show both questionnaires are reliable. [40] (10.1016/j.jhsb.2003.10.010)
  • [L4] Our findings confirm that the DASH is a useful instrument for outcome evaluation. [41] (10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.08.008)
  • [L2] Researchers should consider these findings when designing research trials to avoid potential misleading results, and the number of given questionnaires should be limited to maintain reliability. [42] (10.1016/j.otsr.2024.104076)
  • [L5] However, there are a number of challenges in using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. [43] (10.1007/s11136-008-9379-5)
  • [Paper] Currently there is no convincing evidence to support the routine use of patient-based outcome measures in hand surgeons’ practices. [44] (10.1053/jhsu.2001.29487)
  • [L5] The calculation of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) needs to be correlated with changes in scores on the rating scale and external anchors. [46] (10.1177/03635465231193405)
  • [L3] The median SF-12 MCS of 50.0 was 0.9 points below the Dutch normative population score, a difference that may not be clinically important. [47] (10.1016/j.injury.2024.111779)
  • [L4] It is more responsive to change than the DASH score, with an effect size of 0.97 compared to 0.49 for the DASH. [49] (10.1016/j.jhsb.2005.03.009)
  • [L4] Only 57% of primary medical providers are using patient reported outcome measures within their practice, with the information largely used for research rather than clinical decision-making. [50] (10.1177/2325967119s00107)
  • [L4] It shows moderate-to-strong correlations with established ACLR PROMs, supporting construct validity, and clinically meaningful thresholds have been reported, supporting clinical interpretability; however, the magnitude of responsiveness over time cannot be fully characterized because of limited reporting of longitudinal effect sizes. [51] (10.1002/arj.70559)
  • [Paper] The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is useful in judging the magnitude of the benefit when comparing two treatments, calculating a sample size, making inferences about the percentage of patients improved by a therapeutic intervention, and making cost effectiveness comparisons. [52] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.03.011)
  • [L5] Patient-reported outcome measures need to be responsive, reliable, and validated, and measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB are essential for conveying patient satisfaction, as statistically significant differences may not equate to clinically important differences. [54] (10.1016/j.arthro.2022.08.020)
  • [L3] Differences were noted between VAS scores, with paper scores being significantly higher than electronic scores. [55] (10.1177/2325967119s00037)
  • [L4] The questionnaire was well understood by the respondents, and all scales met the required internal consistency criteria with Cronbach alpha coefficients equaling or exceeding 0.70. [57] (10.4103/0970-0218.106623)
  • [L1] A decrease of 1.04 or more in the SSS score may indicate a clinically important change in a patient’s state of health. [58] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.01.012)
  • [L4] The DASH showed good sensitivity to change at 12 weeks with effect size and SRM similar to the CTQ functional status scale. [59] (10.1053/jhsu.2003.50043)
  • [L2] The scales that were converted to a percentage change yielded the best accuracy in predicting adequate relief, with balanced sensitivity and specificity. [60] (10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00339-0)
  • [L3] The test-retest reliability was high for all five subscales, with an interclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.8 to 0.9. [62] (10.1016/j.injury.2026.113033)
  • [L4] The WOOS-Fr is valid, reliable and responsive to change. [63] (10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103912)
  • [L5] Comparative effectiveness research requires accurate assessments of patient numbers, follow-up completeness, clinical outcomes, and care settings. [64] (10.1007/s11999-013-3194-1)
  • [L4] In this study, standardized questionnaires were more sensitive to the clinical change produced by carpal tunnel surgery than many commonly performed physical measures of outcome. [65] (10.1016/s0363-5023(96)80340-6)
  • [Paper] To assess pain, the clinician or the researcher must use the most appropriate measure for the given situation, considering factors such as reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. [66] (10.1016/s0894-1130(01)80038-7)
  • [L1] The majority of interventional studies reporting PROMs do not report CIs around between-group differences in outcome and do not define a clinically meaningful difference. [67] (10.2106/jbjs.20.00474)
  • [Paper] This guidance describes how the FDA evaluates patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used as effectiveness endpoints in clinical trials and how sponsors can use study results to support claims in approved product labeling. [68] (10.1186/1477-7525-4-79)
  • [L4] The assessment tool demonstrated construct validity by reliably discriminating between different levels of training, as senior trainees performed significantly better than junior trainees on the global rating scale. [69] (10.1016/j.rapm.2006.10.009)
  • [L2] The measure can be useful for assessing physical functioning in clinical trials and observational studies. [70] (10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204053)
  • [L5] This paper provides an overview of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in research and clinical practice. [71] (10.4137/hsi.s11093)
  • [L2] Limiting follow-up to automated methods may have the potential to transform the way that outcome-based research is designed and conducted to provide substantially better research value in large prospective cohorts. [72] (10.2106/jbjs.19.00531)
  • [Paper] MCIDs expressed as effect sizes reduce bias, which mainly results from dependency on the baseline score. [73] (10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.016)
  • [Paper] The objectives are to assess the impact of the routine use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice on the process of care, patients' and professionals' experiences of care, and health outcomes. [74] (10.1002/14651858.cd011589)
  • [L4] Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using them can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value. [75] (10.1097/corr.0000000000002059)
  • [L2] The DASH questionnaire is widely accepted in the everyday medical practice as a tool to evaluate upper limb function. [76] (10.1016/j.hansur.2020.12.010)
  • [Paper] The NIH PROMIS network derived a consensus-based framework for self-reported health and systematically reviewed available instruments and datasets that address the initial PROMIS domains. [77] (10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55)
  • [L4] The reasons provided included a lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs and the perception that it is too time-consuming to add to regular clinical routine. [78] (10.1186/s13018-020-02135-1)
  • [L4] The outcomes of this study support the construct validity of the DASH. [79] (10.1197/j.jht.2003.10.015)
  • [L5] Today, both PROMIS and legacy scores are collected for tracking patient outcomes and research purposes; the authors predict that with further refinement, PROMIS will replace legacy patient-reported outcome measures. [80] (10.1016/j.arthro.2022.08.032)
  • [L4] Predictive validity assessment is planned. [81] (10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3)
  • [L5] Patient-reported outcomes should be collected routinely, preferably via registries using computerized adaptive technology, to enable accurate comparisons and shared decision-making. [82] (10.1007/s11999-013-3224-z)
  • [L3] While proxies reliably assess physical and pain-related domains, additional strategies are needed to improve accuracy in more subjective domains. [83] (10.1016/j.injury.2025.112163)
  • [Paper] Estimates of reliability were based on the actual size of test-retest differences, in kilograms of grip strength, required to detect a genuine change in grip rather than chance differences due to measurement error. [84] (10.1016/s0894-1130(99)80030-1)
  • [Paper] The MCID defines the smallest amount an outcome must change to be meaningful to patients. [85] (10.1001/jama.2014.13128)
  • [L4] These limitations shed some light on why PROM use may not always improve patient outcomes and provide considerations for the design and implementation of future PROM initiatives. [86] (10.1007/s11136-021-03003-z)
  • [L2] The instance of missing PRO data and its potential to bias clinical research can be minimised by implementing thoughtful design, rigorous methodology and transparent reporting strategies. [87] (10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010938)
  • [L4] PROMIS measures are efficient and precise tools, and their use is expected to continue to increase across medical and surgical specialties as health systems and payers expand their definition of healthcare quality to include patient-reported health outcomes. [88] (10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00432)
  • [L2] Because of its confounding effect on measuring physical function, functional demand should be assessed and included in models using PROMs before and after surgery. [89] (10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00069)
  • [L4] The term PROM is a relatively new designation for a range of measures that have existed since at least the 1960s. [90] (10.1111/hex.13254)

References

[1] Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): how should I interpret reports of measurement properties? A practical guide for clinicians and researchers who are not biostatisticians. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2012. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091704

[2] COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2020. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5

[3] The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ. 2010. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c186

[4] Minimal Clinically Important Difference. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.rdc.2018.01.011

[5] Assessing test–retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula. Quality of Life Research. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-2076-0

[6] Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 2012. DOI: 10.1179/2042618612y.0000000001

[7] CORR Insights®: Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2021. DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000001918

[8] The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy. 2016. DOI: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143

[9] Patient-reported outcome after carpal tunnel release for advanced disease. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.08.002

[10] Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: The clinician's perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2006. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-62

[11] Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliative Medicine. 2013. DOI: 10.1177/0269216313491619

[12] Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012

[13] Collection of patient-reported outcomes; - text messages on mobile phones provide valid scores and high response rates. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2014. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-52

[14] Patient reported outcome measures in practice. BMJ. 2015. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7818

[15] THE USE OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES BY PHYSICAL THERAPISTS IN THE PEDIATRIC SPORTS POPULATION. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019. DOI: 10.1177/2325967119s00036

[16] Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ. 2002. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1417

[17] Assessing outcome measures used after rib fracture: A COSMIN systematic review. Injury. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.07.002

[18] A Call for a Standardized Approach to Reporting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2021. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.21.00030

[19] Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2006. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-70

[20] The Patient Outcomes of Surgery-Hand/Arm (Pos-Hand/Arm): A New Patient-Based Outcome Measure. Journal of Hand Surgery. 2004. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.06.002

[21] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: Letter to the Editor. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231189223

[22] Integrating Patient-reported Outcomes Into Orthopaedic Clinical Practice: Proof of Concept From FORCE-TJR. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3143-z

[23] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: Response. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231189222

[24] Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 1998. DOI: 10.1016/s1058-2746(98)90002-7

[25] Physical outcome measures: The role of strength and range of motion in orthopaedic research. Injury. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.017

[26] Assessing patient reported outcome measures: A practical guide for gastroenterologists. United European Gastroenterology Journal. 2014. DOI: 10.1177/2050640614558345

[27] A Standard Method for Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Rehabilitation Measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.008

[28] The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006

[29] Editorial Commentary : The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Is Less Important Than It Sounds: Patients Seek to Achieve Substantial Clinical Benefits and Not Minimally Perceptible Improvements When They Undergo Arthroscopic Surgery. Arthroscopy. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.014

[30] Patient‐reported outcome measures in advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice: a systematic review. Musculoskeletal Care. 2017. DOI: 10.1002/msc.1200

[31] Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study. BMJ. 2020. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m1714

[32] Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f167

[33] Advanced decision‐making using patient‐reported outcome measures in total joint replacement. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 2020. DOI: 10.1002/jor.24614

[34] Outcome measurement in plastic surgery. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2017.11.015

[35] Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Custom Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2026.09.008

[36] The right measure for the right question: A framework for domain‐matched patient‐reported outcome measure selection in knee arthroplasty research. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70620

[37] Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have arrived in sports and exercise medicine: Why do they matter?. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093707

[38] Assessing the Quality of Available Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Intermittent Claudication: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Checklist. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.12.002

[39] The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011

[40] Dash and Boston Questionnaire Assessment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Outcome: What is the Responsiveness of an Outcome Questionnaire?. Journal of Hand Surgery. 2004. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsb.2003.10.010

[41] Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Dash) Questionnaire: Determining Functional Activity Profiles in Patients with Upper Extremity Disorders. Journal of Hand Surgery. 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.08.008

[42] Collection of Multiple Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (CRAM-PROMs) in orthopaedic trauma: a randomized trial to assess the impact of quantity on quality. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2024.104076

[43] Prospects and challenges in using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Quality of Life Research. 2008. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9379-5

[44] Outcomes assessment in hand surgery: When are they meaningful?. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2001. DOI: 10.1053/jhsu.2001.29487

[46] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Changes Greatly Based on the Different Calculation Methods: Letter to the Editor. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231193405

[47] Long-term patient reported outcomes after revision surgery for lower extremity nonunion: A retrospective cohort study. Injury. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.111779

[49] Validity and Responsiveness of the Patient Evaluation Measure as an Outcome Measure for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery. 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsb.2005.03.009

[50] THE USE OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES BY PRIMARY MEDICAL PROVIDERS IN THE PEDIATRIC SPORTS POPULATION. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019. DOI: 10.1177/2325967119s00107

[51] The Forgotten Joint Score Shows High Correlation With Established Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures While Capturing Joint Awareness and Functional Recovery: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/arj.70559

[52] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Symptom Severity Scale. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2006. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.03.011

[54] Guidelines for Proper Reporting of Clinical Significance, Including Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Maximal Outcome Improvement. Arthroscopy. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.08.020

[55] VALIDATION OF A COMPUTER-BASED SYSTEM FOR THE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN PEDIATRIC SPORTS MEDICINE. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019. DOI: 10.1177/2325967119s00037

[57] Validity and reliability of MOS short form health survey (SF-36) for use in India. Indian Journal of Community Medicine. 2013. DOI: 10.4103/0970-0218.106623

[58] The Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Symptom Severity Scale. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2006. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.01.012

[59] Comparative responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand, the carpal tunnel questionnaire, and the SF-36 to clinical change after carpal tunnel release. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2003. DOI: 10.1053/jhsu.2003.50043

[60] Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain. 2000. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00339-0

[62] Measurement properties of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for patella fractures. Injury. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2026.113033

[63] Validity, reliability and responsiveness of a French translation of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS). Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103912

[64] Challenges in Outcome Measurement: Clinical Research Perspective. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3194-1

[65] Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: The relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical examination measures. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 1996. DOI: 10.1016/s0363-5023(96)80340-6

[66] Pain outcome measures. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2001. DOI: 10.1016/s0894-1130(01)80038-7

[67] Interpreting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Surgery. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2020. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.20.00474

[68] Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2006. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79

[69] An Assessment Tool for Brachial Plexus Regional Anesthesia Performance: Establishing Construct Validity and Reliability. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.rapm.2006.10.009

[70] Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2015. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204053

[71] Article Commentary: Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Services Insights. 2013. DOI: 10.4137/hsi.s11093

[72] Value in Research: Achieving Validated Outcome Measurements While Mitigating Follow-up Cost. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.19.00531

[73] The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.016

[74] Routine provision of information on patient-reported outcome measures to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011589

[75] What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2021. DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002059

[76] Normative values of the DASH questionnaire in healthy individuals over 50 years of age. Hand Surgery and Rehabilitation. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.hansur.2020.12.010

[77] The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care. 2007. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55

[78] Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by orthopedic surgeons in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2020. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-02135-1

[79] Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2004. DOI: 10.1197/j.jht.2003.10.015

[80] Editorial Commentary: Legacy Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures Remain Important Today Despite Responder Burden, but With Further Refinement, Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Could Replace Legacy Instruments in the Future. Arthroscopy. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.08.032

[81] Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implementation Science. 2017. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3

[82] The Importance of Outcome Measurement in Orthopaedics. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3224-z

[83] Proxy-reported outcomes accurately reflect objective patient-reported outcomes in older adult patients with traumatic orthopaedic injuries. Injury. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112163

[84] When is a change a genuine change?. Journal of Hand Therapy. 1999. DOI: 10.1016/s0894-1130(99)80030-1

[85] Minimal Clinically Important Difference. JAMA. 2014. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.13128

[86] Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Quality of Life Research. 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-03003-z

[87] Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010938

[88] Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Measures in Orthopaedic Specialties: Results of a Scoping Review for 2018 to 2022. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00432

[89] Current Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Ignores Functional Demand. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2024. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00069

[90] Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectations. 2021. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13254

Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0

CC Creative Commons licence
BY Attribution — you must credit the source
NC NonCommercial — not for commercial use

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the fullest extent possible.

Using Creative Commons Public Licenses

Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses.

Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC- licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors

Considerations for the public: By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of the licensed material may still be restricted for other reasons, including because others have copyright or other rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, such as asking that all changes be marked or described. Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations for the public: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License

By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.

Section 1 -- Definitions.

a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image.

b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.

c. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights closely related to copyright including, without limitation, performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar Rights.

d. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international agreements.

e. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material.

f. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License.

g. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.

h. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights under this Public License.

i. NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange.

j. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

k. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially equivalent rights anywhere in the world.

l. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning.

Section 2 -- Scope.

a. License grant.

1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:

a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and

b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only.

2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions.

3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section 6(a).

4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a) (4) never produces Adapted Material.

5. Downstream recipients.

a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.

b. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.

6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).

b. Other rights.

1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.

2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License.

3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly reserves any right to collect such royalties, including when the Licensed Material is used other than for NonCommercial purposes.

Section 3 -- License Conditions.

Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.

a. Attribution.

1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:

i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);

ii. a copyright notice;

iii. a notice that refers to this Public License;

iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;

v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;

b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and

c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.

2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.

3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.

4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.

Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights.

Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material:

a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database for NonCommercial purposes only;

b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and

c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights.

Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.

a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability.

Section 6 -- Term and Termination.

a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically.

b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates:

1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation; or

2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License.

c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.

d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public License.

Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions.

a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.

b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.

Section 8 -- Interpretation.

a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License.

b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.

c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.

d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal processes of any jurisdiction or authority.

Creative Commons is not a party to its public licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including, without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements, understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the public licenses.

Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.