Substantial Variability Exists in the Reporting of Clinically Significant Outcomes Following Meniscal Procedures: A Systematic Review

Purpose To systematically review methods of calculating and reporting thresholds of clinically significant outcome measures (CSO) associated with meniscal debridement, repair, and allograft transplantation. Methods A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS online databases was conducted to identify articles reporting minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), or substantial clinical benefit (SCB) associated with procedures of the meniscus (debridement, repair or allograft transplantation) with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up published between January 1, 2010 to August 25, 2024. The MINORS criteria were used to assess study quality. Study demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), CSO thresholds, and method of CSO calculation were collected, which were then separated by procedure. Results A total of 21 studies, reporting on 3110 patients across three different meniscal procedures, were identified. Reported PROMs included Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (n=16 studies), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) (n=15 studies), Lysholm (n=12 studies), and Tegner (n=5 studies). Fifteen studies reported MCID and PASS while SCB was reported in five studies. MCID was calculated using a distribution-based methodology in nine studies using one-half of the standard deviation of the mean change. Anchor-based methods were used by nine studies reporting PASS and four reporting SCB. The most common anchor-based method was the Receiver Operating Characteristic-Youden index, utilized in six studies reporting PASS and four reporting SCB. Conclusion Substantial variability exists in the reporting and calculation of MCID, SCB, and PASS for various PROMs following meniscal debridement, repair and allograft transplantation. This heterogeneity may hinder the interpretive utility of such measures. As such, authors should strive to derive CSO values specific to their patient population at hand using anchor-based methods if possible.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation
Published
2026-04-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.60118/001c.145738
Primary Topic
Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Substantial Variability Exists in the Reporting of Clinically Significant Outcomes Following Meniscal Procedures: A Systematic Review

Justin T Childers, Derrick M. Knapik, Benjamin T. Lack, Colton C. Mowers et al.
Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation
Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
article

Substantial Variability Exists in the Reporting of Clinically Significant Outcomes Following Meniscal Procedures: A Systematic Review

Justin T Childers, Derrick M. Knapik, Benjamin T. Lack, Colton C. Mowers, Garrett R. Jackson, Steven F. DeFroda
article en

Abstract

Purpose To systematically review methods of calculating and reporting thresholds of clinically significant outcome measures (CSO) associated with meniscal debridement, repair, and allograft transplantation. Methods A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS online databases was conducted to identify articles reporting minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), or substantial clinical benefit (SCB) associated with procedures of the meniscus (debridement, repair or allograft transplantation) with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up published between January 1, 2010 to August 25, 2024. The MINORS criteria were used to assess study quality. Study demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), CSO thresholds, and method of CSO calculation were collected, which were then separated by procedure. Results A total of 21 studies, reporting on 3110 patients across three different meniscal procedures, were identified. Reported PROMs included Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (n=16 studies), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) (n=15 studies), Lysholm (n=12 studies), and Tegner (n=5 studies). Fifteen studies reported MCID and PASS while SCB was reported in five studies. MCID was calculated using a distribution-based methodology in nine studies using one-half of the standard deviation of the mean change. Anchor-based methods were used by nine studies reporting PASS and four reporting SCB. The most common anchor-based method was the Receiver Operating Characteristic-Youden index, utilized in six studies reporting PASS and four reporting SCB. Conclusion Substantial variability exists in the reporting and calculation of MCID, SCB, and PASS for various PROMs following meniscal debridement, repair and allograft transplantation. This heterogeneity may hinder the interpretive utility of such measures. As such, authors should strive to derive CSO values specific to their patient population at hand using anchor-based methods if possible.

Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & InnovationVol. 7(1)
Rush University Medical Center (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), Florida Atlantic University (US), University of Missouri (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.