We have located links that may give you full text access.
Validation of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT).
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy 2024 March
BACKGROUND: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test is widely used to measure change in olfactory function, but a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been well-established. A study published in 1997 regarding patients with head trauma reported an MCID of 4 but did not detail the methods used in the calculation.
OBJECTIVE: To validate the MCID for UPSIT in patients with postviral, sinusitis, and procedure-associated olfactory loss.
METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from 5 clinical research studies related to olfactory function. Three studies included subjects with COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction, one with chronic sinusitis subjects, and one with subjects undergoing transsphenoidal surgery. All subjects had completed a baseline and follow-up UPSIT, baseline and follow-up Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-Severity), and a follow-up CGI-Improvement. Both distribution- and anchor-based methods were used to determine the MCID of UPSIT. Distribution-based method calculated MCID using half standard deviation of baseline UPSIT and delta UPSIT scores. Clinical-anchor method determined MCID by comparing delta UPSIT scores between consecutive CGI-I clinical categories ranging from very much better to very much worse.
RESULTS: The study population comprised 295 subjects. Subjects had a mean (SD) baseline UPSIT score of 27 (7.5), and follow-up score of 28 (7.9), and a mean UPSIT change of 0.6 (5.8). Half the baseline UPSIT SD was 3.75 and half the delta UPSIT SD was 2.9. With the anchor-based approach, an MCID of 4 was defined as clinically meaningful by exploring the relationship between delta UPSIT and CGI-Improvement. Using a more conservative approach based on the MCID values identified from both methods, we determined that a change of 4 or greater is the appropriate MCID for UPSIT.
CONCLUSION: Investigators in the future should use 4 as MCID for UPSIT and report the percentage of study subjects who achieve a clinically meaningful difference.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
OBJECTIVE: To validate the MCID for UPSIT in patients with postviral, sinusitis, and procedure-associated olfactory loss.
METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from 5 clinical research studies related to olfactory function. Three studies included subjects with COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction, one with chronic sinusitis subjects, and one with subjects undergoing transsphenoidal surgery. All subjects had completed a baseline and follow-up UPSIT, baseline and follow-up Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-Severity), and a follow-up CGI-Improvement. Both distribution- and anchor-based methods were used to determine the MCID of UPSIT. Distribution-based method calculated MCID using half standard deviation of baseline UPSIT and delta UPSIT scores. Clinical-anchor method determined MCID by comparing delta UPSIT scores between consecutive CGI-I clinical categories ranging from very much better to very much worse.
RESULTS: The study population comprised 295 subjects. Subjects had a mean (SD) baseline UPSIT score of 27 (7.5), and follow-up score of 28 (7.9), and a mean UPSIT change of 0.6 (5.8). Half the baseline UPSIT SD was 3.75 and half the delta UPSIT SD was 2.9. With the anchor-based approach, an MCID of 4 was defined as clinically meaningful by exploring the relationship between delta UPSIT and CGI-Improvement. Using a more conservative approach based on the MCID values identified from both methods, we determined that a change of 4 or greater is the appropriate MCID for UPSIT.
CONCLUSION: Investigators in the future should use 4 as MCID for UPSIT and report the percentage of study subjects who achieve a clinically meaningful difference.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Treatment of hyponatremia: comprehension and best clinical practice.Clinical and Experimental Nephrology 2025 January 23
How We Treat ANCA-Associated Vasculitis: A Focus on the Maintenance Therapy.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2025 January 2
Allergic rhinitis.Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology 2024 December 27
Insomnia in older adults: A review of treatment options.Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2025 January 2
Aldosterone and Potassium in Heart Failure: Overcoming This Major Impediment in Clinical Practice.Cardiac Failure Review 2024
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2025 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app