PTMeta-AnalysisPhysical therapy2024

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Shortened Version of the DASH (QuickDASH) in People With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lorenzo Galardini, Andrea Coppari, Leonardo Pellicciari and 5 others

PMID 38438144

WHAT IT FOUND

A change of about 12 to 14 points on the DASH, and about 12 to 15 on the QuickDASH, is the range the authors say patients notice.

Pooled measurement error was 9.04 DASH points and 9.03 QuickDASH points.

Key findings

01Twelve studies of 1677 people with upper limb musculoskeletal problems produced 17 different MCID estimates, from 8.3 to 18.0 DASH points and 8.0 to 18.1 QuickDASH points, depending on the body area, the treatment given, how long people were followed and which level of improvement the study counted as important.

02Pooled measurement error was 9.04 DASH points (95% CI 6.46-11.62) and 9.03 QuickDASH points (95% CI 6.36-11.71); pooled MCID was 11 DASH points (95% CI 8.59-13.41) and 11.97 QuickDASH points (95% CI 9.60-14.33).

03The authors propose using ranges rather than a single figure: 12 to 14 DASH points and 12 to 15 QuickDASH points, with the lower bound being the first value above pooled measurement error and the upper bound the top of the confidence interval around the pooled MCID.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Most included studies followed people for 3 months or less, and only three followed them for 6 months, so the thresholds may not describe longer-term change. Most patients (1014 of 1677) had conservative physical therapy; the rest had surgery, shockwave or physical therapy after surgery, and for 180 the treatment was not described. The thresholds may differ by treatment. The studies disagreed about who counted as improved on their rating scales, and that changes the answer: in one study the threshold moved from 11.7 to 12.5 DASH points depending on which patients were counted. Quality was uneven. MCID reporting scored a median of 12.5 out of 18 points, the checklist used for that scoring has not been validated, and measurement-error reporting was inadequate in one study and doubtful in three. Publication bias could not be assessed because fewer than 10 studies went into each meta-analysis. The values come from adults with musculoskeletal upper limb disorders. The authors say they may not apply to people with neurological conditions or to one specific diagnosis, and children and people with neurological comorbidities were excluded. None of the included studies adjusted the analysis for how severe people were at the start, although the authors note that baseline severity affects the MCID.

Declared interests

The article text supplied contains no funding or competing interests statement, so there is nothing to report on who paid for the work.

The easy way to misread this

Do not use 12 points as a fixed pass mark for every patient. The studies behind it called people 'improved' at different points on their rating scales, and in one study the threshold moved from 11.7 to 12.5 DASH points depending on who was counted as improved. The authors themselves present these as ranges to choose within. The pooled values also come only from adults with upper limb musculoskeletal problems and may not hold for people with neurological conditions.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →