Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

Intense Pulsed Light for the Treatment of Dry Eye Owing to Meibomian Gland Dysfunction
Published on: April 1, 2019
Determination of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for Ocular Subjective Responses
Maria Navascues-Cornago1, Sarah Guthrie2, Philip B Morgan1
1Eurolens Research, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Purpose:
To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for contact lens (CL)-related subjective responses and explore whether MCID values differ between subjective responses and study designs.
Methods:
This was a retrospective analysis of data from seven one-week bilateral crossover studies and 14 one-day contralateral CL studies. For comfort, dryness, vision, or ease of insertion, participants rated on a 0-100 visual analogue scale (VAS) and indicated lens preference on a five-point Likert scale featuring strong, slight, and no preferences. For each criterion, four MCID estimates were calculated and averaged: mean VAS score difference for "slight preference," lower limit of 95% confidence interval VAS score difference for "slight preference," difference in mean VAS score difference between "slight" and "no preference" and 0.5 standard deviation of VAS scores.
Results:
The four calculation methods generated a small range of MCID values. For bilateral studies, the averaged MCID was 7.2 (range 5.4-8.8) for comfort, 8.1 (5.2-10.6) for dryness, 7.1 (5.5-9.3) for vision and 7.6 (6.0-10.5) for ease of insertion. For contralateral studies, the averaged MCID was 6.9 (6.1-7.6) for comfort at insertion and 7.5 (6.8-8.2) for end-of-day comfort.
Conclusions:
This work demonstrated very similar MCID values across subjective responses and study designs, in a population of habitual soft CL wearers. In all cases, MCID values were on average seven units on a 0 to 100 VAS.
Translational Relevance:
This work provides MCID values which are important for interpreting ocular subjective responses and planning clinical studies.
More Related Videos
06:29Comparing Objective Conjunctival Hyperemia Grading and the Ocular Surface Disease Index Score in Dry Eye Syndrome During COVID-19
Published on: May 25, 2022
04:00Author Spotlight: Establishing a Practical and Cost-Effective Protocol for Corneal Sensitivity Testing in Clinical Settings
Published on: August 2, 2024