Back

Initial Estimates of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI): A Systematic Meta-Analysis

Canori, A.; Howard, R.; Bower, J.; Putrino, D.; Tabecof, L.

2025-01-10 pain medicine
10.1101/2025.01.08.25320237
Show abstract

BackgroundThe Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) is a commonly used assessment in neuropathic pain (NP) trials, yet a Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) has not been established. An MCID would enhance the interpretability of NPSI scores, guiding clinicians and researchers in assessing clinically important improvements in NP symptoms. The aim of this study was to calculate an MCID from the available scientific research that used the NPSI. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of NP trials reporting the NPSI. Four distributional approaches were applied to estimate the MCID: 1) meta-regression on the set of standard deviation (SD) of change scores, 2) meta-regression on the set of baseline SD scores, 3) simple aggregation on the set of SD of change scores, and 4) simple aggregation on the set of baseline SD scores. Only treatment arms within Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were examined for MCID estimation. Control arms were examined separately in a sensitivity analysis using the simple aggregation method for both SD of change and baseline SD sets. Bias for each included study was assessed using the Cochrane tool for quality assessment of randomized controlled trials. Results323 trials were examined, 12 were selected for inclusion with a total of 17 treatment arms. The calculated MCID estimates for the NPSI total score (range 1-100) were 6.21 for the SD of change meta-regression and 7.1 for baseline SD meta regression. The MCID values aggregated using simple aggregation methods were 7.95 using pooled SD of change scores, 7.8 using pooled baseline SD. Control arms had a MCID of 8.04 for SD of Change and 8.71 for Baseline SD. ConclusionThis study provides preliminary MCID estimates for the NPSI. Limitations include limited data for NP subtypes, highlighting the need for additional anchor-based and etiology-specific MCID research to refine these estimates. These findings can aid in future NP trial design and the interpretation of results.

Matching journals

1
Pain
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 15 published papers
Top 0.2%
138× avg
2
The Journal of Pain
Elsevier BV · based on 11 published papers
#1
186× avg
3
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 42%
12.2%
4
BMC Neurology
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
#1
84× avg
5
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 20%
5.5%
6
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Wiley · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.5%
43× avg
7
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 45%
4.2%
8
Clinical and Translational Science
Wiley · based on 14 published papers
Top 0.2%
36× avg
9
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Frontiers Media SA · based on 11 published papers
Top 0.4%
44× avg
10
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ · based on 15 published papers
Top 0.6%
28× avg
11
BJGP Open
Royal College of General Practitioners · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.6%
34× avg
12
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Elsevier BV · based on 13 published papers
Top 0.9%
18× avg
13
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Elsevier BV · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.8%
22× avg
14
Frontiers in Digital Health
Frontiers Media SA · based on 18 published papers
Top 2%
12× avg
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
JMIR Publications Inc. · based on 81 published papers
Top 10%
2.1× avg
16
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Frontiers Media SA · based on 29 published papers
Top 2%
9.2× avg
17
Social Science & Medicine
Elsevier BV · based on 15 published papers
Top 2%
9.9× avg
18
Frontiers in Immunology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 140 published papers
Top 6%
2.7× avg
19
PLOS Medicine
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 95 published papers
Top 13%
1.6× avg
20
Brain
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 69 published papers
Top 6%
2.2× avg
21
Medicine
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 29 published papers
Top 7%
2.8× avg
22
Blood Advances
American Society of Hematology · based on 16 published papers
Top 1%
9.1× avg