BackgroundThe minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to interpret the clinical relevance of results reported by trials and meta-analyses as well as to plan sample sizes in new studies. However, there is a lack of consensus about the size of MCID in acute pain, which is a core symptom affecting patients across many clinical conditions.MethodsWe identified and systematically reviewed empirical studies of MCID in acute pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, and included prospective studies determining MCID using a patient-reported anchor and a one-dimensional pain scale (e.g. 100 mm visual analogue scale). We summarised results and explored reasons for heterogeneity applying meta-regression, subgroup analyses and individual patient data meta-analyses.ResultsWe included 37 studies (8479 patients). Thirty-five studies used a mean change approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the mean difference in pain score among patients who reported a minimum degree of improvement, while seven studies used a threshold approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the threshold in pain reduction associated with the best accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for identifying improved patients. Meta-analyses found considerable heterogeneity between studies (absolute MCID: I2 = 93%, relative MCID: I2 = 75%) and results were therefore presented qualitatively, while analyses focused on exploring reasons for heterogeneity. The reported absolute MCID values ranged widely from 8 to 40 mm (standardised to a 100 mm scale) and the relative MCID values from 13% to 85%. From analyses of individual patient data (seven studies, 918 patients), we found baseline pain strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, MCID as patients with higher baseline pain needed larger pain reduction to perceive relief. Subgroup analyses showed that the definition of improved patients (one or several categories improvement or meaningful change) and the design of studies (single or multiple measurements) also influenced MCID values.ConclusionsThe MCID in acute pain varied greatly between studies and was influenced by baseline pain, definitions of improved patients and study design. MCID is context-specific and potentially misguiding if determined, applied or interpreted inappropriately. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of a reference value are required when using MCID to classify research results as clinically important or trivial.

Sarcopenia was associated with an increased risk of complications after gastrointestinal tumor resection, but lack of methodological consensus hampers the interpretation and clinical utilization of these findings. Combining assessment of muscle mass with measures of physical function may increase the prognostic value and accuracy in preoperative risk stratification.

MCID for chronic pain relief vary considerably. Baseline pain is strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, measures. To a much lesser degree, MCID is also influenced by the operational definition of relevant pain relief and possibly by clinical condition. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of an MCID are required when classifying effect sizes as clinically important or trivial.

BackgroundPhysical activity has been shown to mitigate the unwanted psychological and physiological side effects of prostate cancer treatments, but sustainable exercise possibilities are limited.ObjectiveOur objective was to examine whether football in a real-world setting (i.e., local football clubs) was safe and feasible in practice and could improve quality of life, mitigate decline in muscle mass and bone density, and increase fat mass in patients with prostate cancer.MethodsIn this pragmatic, multicentre, parallel randomized controlled trial, men diagnosed with prostate cancer were recruited from five Danish urological departments. Men (N = 214) diagnosed with prostate cancer were randomly allocated, using random generated lists (block size 4–8) stratified for center and androgen-deprivation therapy status, to either 1 h of football twice weekly in a local football club or to usual care, which was a 15- to 30-min telephone session covering their options for physical activity or free-of-charge rehabilitation delivered as standard in Denmark. Allocation was concealed from the trial investigator performing the randomization, but—given the nature of the intervention—this was not possible for personnel and participants. Assessments were performed at baseline, 12 weeks, and 6 months. The primary outcome was mean change difference in prostate cancer-specific quality of life at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were body composition, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) physical and mental health, and safety—reported as fractures, falls, and serious adverse events.ResultsAttrition was 1 and 3% at 12 weeks, and 5% and 5% at 6 months for the usual care and football groups, respectively. Prostate cancer-specific quality of life was equal between groups at 12 weeks (mean difference + 1.9 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] –1.0–4.8; P = 0.20) and at 6 months (+ 0.5 points, 95% CI –2.8–3.8; P = 0.76). Fractures were equally distributed, with two fractures in the usual care group and one in the football group. Likewise, body composition outcomes were equal. Mental health improved after 6 months of football (mean difference + 2.7 points, 95% CI 0.8–4.6; P = 0.006).ConclusionsIn this trial, community-based football was a feasible exercise strategy for men with prostate cancer. Football did not improve prostate cancer-specific quality of life but did improve mental health; the clinical significance of this is unclear.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02430792.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-018-1031-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPhysical exercise has been shown to be effective in relation to fatigue, aerobic fitness, and lower body strength in men with prostate cancer. However, research into the clinically relevant effects of interventions conducted in heterogeneous patient populations and in real-life clinical practice settings is warranted.Methods and findingsWe conducted a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial in 5 Danish urological departments. Recruitment began in May 2015, the first participant was randomised in June 2015, and the last participant was included in February 2017. In total, 214 men with prostate cancer were randomly assigned to either 6 months of free-of-charge football training twice weekly at a local club (football group [FG]) (n = 109) or usual care (usual care group [UG]) (n = 105), including brief information on physical activity recommendations at randomisation. Participants were on average 68.4 (SD 6.2) years old, 157 (73%) were retired, 87 (41%) were on castration-based treatment, 19 (9%) had received chemotherapy, and 41 (19%) had skeletal metastases at baseline. In this 1-year follow-up study, we evaluated the effects of community-based football training on the following outcomes: primary outcome, quality of life; secondary outcomes: continuation of football after 6 months, hip and lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD), mental health score, fat and lean body mass, and safety outcomes, i.e., fractures, falls, and hospital admissions. Intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were conducted. No statistically significant between-group difference was observed in change in prostate-cancer-specific quality of life (ITT: 1.9 points [95% CI −1.9 to 5.8], p = 0.325; PP: 3.6 points [95% CI −0.9 to 8.2], p = 0.119). A statistically significant between-group difference was observed in change in total hip BMD, in favour of FG (0.007 g/cm2 [95% CI 0.004 to 0.013], p = 0.037). No differences were observed in change in lumbar spine BMD or lean body mass. Among patients allocated to football, 59% chose to continue playing football after the end of the 6-month intervention period. At 1-year follow-up in the PP population, FG participants had more improvement on the Mental Component Summary (2.9 [95% CI 0.0 to 5.7], p = 0.048 points higher) than UG participants, as well as a greater loss of fat mass (−0.9 kg [95% CI −1.7 to −0.1], p = 0.029). There were no differences between groups in relation to fractures or falls. Hospital admissions were more frequent in UG compared to FG (33 versus 20; the odds ratio based on PP analysis was 0.34 for FG compared to UG). There were 3 deaths in FG and 4 in UG. Main limitations of the study were the physically active control group and assessment of physical activity by means of self-report.ConclusionsIn this trial, participants allocated to football appeared to have improved hip BMD and fewer hospital admissions. Men who played football more than once a week for 1 year lost fat mass and reported improved mental health. Community-based football ...