Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 1, 2026

Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research
Published on: January 5, 2024
Estimating minimal, moderate, and marked clinically important differences for patient reported outcome measure in
Jiani Wu1,2, Liang Yao3, Kuan Liao4,5
1Department of Acupuncture and Neurology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100053, China.
Background:
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical trials, yet thresholds that define clinically important difference (CID) within patients and treatment effects beyond placebo remain inconsistently reported, limiting its utility in clinical research and practice. Using chronic pelvic pain and its core PROM as a worked example, the study aims to present a structured framework for CID thresholds that separates within-group change from between-group difference in treatment effect, each further stratified as minimal, moderate, and marked.
Methods:
We used data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial of acupuncture vs . sham acupuncture in 440 men with chronic prostatitis (CP)/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) conducted from October 2017 to April 2019. National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) served as the PROM and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) as the anchor. CIDs were estimated using a linear mixed-effects model to assess changes in NIH-CPSI scores across PGI-C categories.
Results:
At the end of treatment, 12.3% (51/414) participants reported no change, 34.1% (141/414) slight improvement, 32.1% (133/414) moderate improvement, and 19.6% (81/414) marked improvement; and 1.9% (8/414) reported worsening. The estimated Clinically important within-group difference (CIDs within-group ) in NIH-CPSI total score was 4.6 points for minimal, 6.0 points for moderate, and 7.3 points for marked improvement. The corresponding Clinically important between-group difference (CIDs between-group ) were 1.4, 2.7, and 4.1 points, respectively.
Conclusions:
In this methodological study, we proposed a pragmatic and scalable operational framework to derive thresholds for minimal, moderate, and marked CIDs. By explicitly distinguishing CIDs within-group and CIDs between-group , the approach clarifies two frequently conflated terms that serve distinct purposes in interpretation and decision-making. This framework offers benchmarks to strengthen inference on treatment response, trial design, and guideline decision thresholds.
More Related Videos
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
04:53A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Bioequivalence Data: Statistical Interpretation
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
Odds Ratio
Regression Toward the Mean
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups