Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Variability: Analysis01:11

Variability: Analysis

167
Measures of variability are statistical metrics that reveal the dispersion pattern within a dataset. They are pivotal in biostatistics, providing insights into the heterogeneity within health and biological data. Variability signifies the degree to which data points diverge from one another, helping researchers understand the potential range of values and associated uncertainty within the data.
The range is a simple measure of variability, indicating the difference between the highest and...
167
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation01:19

Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation

2.5K
A complete procedure to test a claim about population standard deviation or population variance is explained here.
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
2.5K
Standard Deviation of Calculated Results01:14

Standard Deviation of Calculated Results

6.4K
Standard deviation measures the spread of data around the mean value. Many large data sets follow a Gaussian distribution, also known as a normal distribution. This distribution is bell-shaped curved, with the most frequently observed value (mean or central value) in the middle. The farther away from the central value, the greater the deviation from the central value, and the lower the frequency.
A broad Gaussian distribution curve has a wider standard deviation, representing a data set with...
6.4K
Regression Toward the Mean01:52

Regression Toward the Mean

6.3K
Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when...
6.3K
Statistical Analysis: Overview01:11

Statistical Analysis: Overview

6.8K
When we take repeated measurements on the same or replicated samples, we will observe inconsistencies in the magnitude. These inconsistencies are called errors. To categorize and characterize these results and their errors, the researcher can use statistical analysis to determine the quality of the measurements and/or suitability of the methods.
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
6.8K
Variation: Normal Distribution, Range, and Standard Deviation02:32

Variation: Normal Distribution, Range, and Standard Deviation

22.4K
In the field of psychology, there are several ways to organize measurements of a trait, feature, or characteristic (i.e., variables). Qualitative data, such as ethnicity, can be tabulated into a frequency count to provide information about the proportion, as well as the variety of groups in a sample or population. On the other hand, researchers can perform a wider set of calculations on quantitative data. The mean, mode, and median, for instance, are central tendency measures to identify a...
22.4K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Distal biceps tendon repair: immobilization versus early mobilization. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

EFORT open reviews·2026
Same author

Cell-based therapy injections for the management of knee osteoarthritis: The ESSKA-ICRS consensus. Recommendations using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method for different clinical scenarios.

Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA·2026
Same author

Author Reply to "Regarding 'Sling Is Not Inferior to Brace Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial'".

Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association·2026
Same author

Platelet-Rich Plasma Accelerates the Return to Sport in Athletes with Acute Muscle Injuries: A Systematic Review and Statistical Fragility Index-Based Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Sports medicine - open·2026
Same author

ICRS-FIFA-Aspetar consensus on the management of knee cartilage injuries in football players: part 2-appropriateness of specific surgical procedures to address articular cartilage lesions in different clinical scenarios using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

British journal of sports medicine·2026
Same author

Return to sport after meniscectomy, meniscal repair, and meniscal allograft transplantation for meniscal lesions in athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA·2026
Same journal

Comparison of Long-term Supraspinatus Tear Progression After Arthroscopic Isolated Subscapularis Repair With and Without Comma Tissue Preservation: A Minimum 10-Year MRI Follow-up Study.

The American journal of sports medicine·2026
Same journal

The Long-term Radiographic Fate of the Chronically ACL-Deficient Knee: Response.

The American journal of sports medicine·2026
Same journal

The Long-term Radiographic Fate of the Chronically ACL-Deficient Knee: Letter to the Editor.

The American journal of sports medicine·2026
Same journal

Metformin Reduces the Incidence of Shoulder Stiffness After Arthroscopic RC Repair: Letter to the Editor.

The American journal of sports medicine·2026
Same journal

Metformin Reduces the Incidence of Shoulder Stiffness After Arthroscopic RC Repair: Response.

The American journal of sports medicine·2026
Same journal

What Is the "Perfect" Lateral Radiograph? Effects of Beam Directionality and Condylar Alignment on the Perceived Location of the Medial Patellofemoral Ligament: Letter to the Editor.

The American journal of sports medicine·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 9, 2025

Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response
06:31

Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response

Published on: October 3, 2019

8.7K

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Changes Greatly Based on the Different Calculation Methods.

Marco Franceschini1, Angelo Boffa1, Elettra Pignotti2

  • 1Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.

The American Journal of Sports Medicine
|February 22, 2023
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Different methods for calculating the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) yield highly varied results, impacting the assessment of treatment effectiveness and patient outcomes in clinical research.

Keywords:
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC)kneeminimal clinically important difference (MCID)osteoarthritispatient-reported outcome measure (PROM)platelet-rich plasma (PRP)

More Related Videos

Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing
06:24

Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing

Published on: May 28, 2013

41.9K
Standardized Measurement of Nasal Membrane Transepithelial Potential Difference NPD
09:47

Standardized Measurement of Nasal Membrane Transepithelial Potential Difference NPD

Published on: September 13, 2018

16.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Aug 9, 2025

Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response
06:31

Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response

Published on: October 3, 2019

8.7K
Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing
06:24

Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing

Published on: May 28, 2013

41.9K
Standardized Measurement of Nasal Membrane Transepithelial Potential Difference NPD
09:47

Standardized Measurement of Nasal Membrane Transepithelial Potential Difference NPD

Published on: September 13, 2018

16.5K

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedics
  • Rheumatology
  • Clinical Research Methodology

Background:

  • The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) quantifies meaningful treatment improvement for patients using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
  • MCID is increasingly vital for evaluating treatment efficacy, guiding clinical practice, and interpreting trial data.
  • Significant heterogeneity exists in current MCID calculation methodologies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To calculate and compare MCID threshold values for a specific PROM using diverse methods.
  • To analyze the impact of different MCID calculation approaches on the interpretation of study results.

Main Methods:

  • A cohort of 312 knee osteoarthritis patients treated with intra-articular platelet-rich plasma was analyzed.
  • MCID values for the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score were calculated using 9 anchor-based and 8 distribution-based methodologies.
  • The effect of varying MCID thresholds on evaluating patient treatment response was assessed.

Main Results:

  • MCID values ranged widely from 1.8 to 25.9 points across all methods.
  • Anchor-based methods yielded MCID values from 6.3 to 25.9 (4.1x variation).
  • Distribution-based methods yielded MCID values from 1.8 to 13.8 (7.6x variation).
  • The percentage of patients achieving MCID varied significantly, from 24.0% to 66.0% (anchor-based) and 44.6% to 75.9% (distribution-based).

Conclusions:

  • Disparate MCID calculation methods produce highly heterogeneous values.
  • This heterogeneity significantly influences the proportion of patients considered to have achieved a meaningful improvement.
  • The wide variation in MCID thresholds challenges the reliable evaluation of treatment effectiveness and the current utility of MCID in clinical research.