nach oben

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Erschienen in:

12.01.2021 | Outcomes Research in Orthopedics (O Ayeni, Section Editor)

Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review

verfasst von: Favian Su, Sachin Allahabadi, Dale N. Bongbong, Brian T. Feeley, Drew A. Lansdown

Erschienen in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Ausgabe 1/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of the Review

To provide a comprehensive summary of available literature on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for various shoulder conditions and outcomes and to identify factors that influence these metrics.

Recent Findings

Over the past 2 years, there has been an increasing interest in utilizing MCID, SCB, and PASS as a gauge to evaluate the success of an intervention for shoulder conditions. Efforts at calculating these thresholds have yielded multiple and inconsistent values and are further compounded by the proliferation of different PROMs in the shoulder literature.

Summary

The MCID, SCB, and PASS values of shoulder PROMs vary widely with study-specific characteristics, including patient demographics, shoulder pathology, treatment, shoulder instrument, study methodology, and calculation method. The differences in these factors are not inconsequential and could lead to large discrepancies in threshold values. It is crucial that clinicians are mindful of these variables when designing future studies to calculate these metrics or when utilizing previously published values to determine the success of an intervention.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.CrossRefPubMed

Chan LS. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID)--adding meaning to statistical inference. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(11):e24–5. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301580.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):171–84. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.9.CrossRefPubMed

Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1342–3. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.13128.CrossRefPubMed

Cvetanovich GL, Gowd AK, Liu JN, Nwachukwu BU, Cabarcas BC, Cole BJ, et al. Establishing clinically significant outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2019;28(5):939–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.013.CrossRef

Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY. Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(9):1839–47. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01095.CrossRefPubMed

Tubach F, Dougados M, Falissard B, Baron G, Logeart I, Ravaud P. Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(4):526–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22110.CrossRefPubMed

Jones IA, Togashi R, Heckmann N, Vangsness CT Jr. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported shoulder outcomes. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2020;29(7):1484–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.12.033.CrossRef

10.

Hao Q, Devji T, Zeraatkar D, Wang Y, Qasim A, Siemieniuk RAC, et al. Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a BMJ rapid recommendation. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e028777. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028777.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Dabija DI, Jain NB. Minimal clinically important difference of shoulder outcome measures and diagnoses: a systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(8):671–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001169.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Devji T, Guyatt GH, Lytvyn L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Foroutan F, Sadeghirad B, et al. Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform BMJ rapid recommendations. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):e015587. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015587.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Rysstad T, Grotle M, Klokk LP, Tveter AT. Responsiveness and minimal important change of the QuickDASH and PSFS when used among patients with shoulder pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):328. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03289-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Tashjian RZ, Shin J, Broschinsky K, Yeh CC, Martin B, Chalmers PN, et al. Minimal clinically important differences in the American shoulder and elbow surgeons, simple shoulder test, and visual analog scale pain scores after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2020;29(7):1406–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.11.018.CrossRef

16.

Berglund DD, Law TY, Rosas S, Kurowicki J, Giveans MR, Mijic D, et al. The procedure value index: a new method for quantifying value in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2019;28(2):335–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.07.031.CrossRef

17.

Berglund DD, Mijic D, Law TY, Kurowicki J, Rosas S, Levy JC. Value comparison of humeral component press-fit and cemented techniques in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2019;28(3):496–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.015.CrossRef

18.

Gowd AK, Charles MD, Liu JN, Lalehzarian SP, Cabarcas BC, Manderle BJ, et al. Single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) is a reliable metric to measure clinically significant improvements following shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2019;28(11):2238–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.041.CrossRef

19.

Park I, Oh MJ, Shin SJ. Minimal clinically important differences and correlating factors for the Rowe score and the American shoulder and elbow surgeons score after arthroscopic stabilization surgery for anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(1):54–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.08.005.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Policastro PO, Pierobon A, Perez J, Novoa GA, Calvo Delfino M, Sajfar ME, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the argentine "American shoulder and elbow surgeons, patient self-report section" questionnaire. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;43:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2019.05.010.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Puzzitiello RN, Gowd AK, Liu JN, Agarwalla A, Verma NN, Forsythe B. Establishing minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after biceps tenodesis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2019;28(4):639–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.09.025.CrossRef

22.

Kc S, Sharma S, Ginn K, Almadi T, Reed D. Nepali translation, cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI). J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):284. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1285-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Kc S, Sharma S, Ginn K, Almadi T, Subedi H, Reed D. Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the Nepali version of the DASH (disability of arm, shoulder and hand) in patients with shoulder pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1105-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Xu S, Chen JY, Lie HME, Hao Y, Lie DTT. Minimal clinically important difference of Oxford, Constant, and UCLA shoulder score for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Orthop. 2020;19:21–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2019.11.037.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Braun C, Handoll HH. Estimating the minimal important difference for the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) in adults with shoulder pain associated with partial-thickness rotator cuff tears. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;35:30–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2018.02.003.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Budtz CR, Andersen JH, de Vos Andersen NB, Christiansen DH. Responsiveness and minimal important change for the quick-DASH in patients with shoulder disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1052-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Gagnier JJ, Robbins C, Bedi A, Carpenter JE, Miller BS. Establishing minimally important differences for the American shoulder and elbow surgeons score and the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2018;27(5):e160–e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.042.CrossRef

28.

Gowd AK, Cvetanovich GL, Liu JN, Nwachukwu BU, Cabarcas BC, Cole BJ, et al. Preoperative mental health scores and achieving patient acceptable symptom state are predictive of return to work after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(10):2325967119878415. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967119878415.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Koorevaar RCT, Kleinlugtenbelt YV, Landman EBM, van’t Riet E, Bulstra SK. Psychological symptoms and the MCID of the DASH score in shoulder surgery. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):246. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0949-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Park I, Lee JH, Hyun HS, Lee TK, Shin SJ. Minimal clinically important differences in Rowe and Western Ontario shoulder instability index scores after arthroscopic repair of anterior shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2018;27(4):579–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.032.CrossRef

31.

Simovitch R, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD, Roche CP. Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2018;27(2):298–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.013.CrossRef

32.

Stein T, Muller D, Blank M, Reinig Y, Saier T, Hoffmann R, et al. Stabilization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separation: a prospective assessment of the clavicular hook plate versus the double double-button suture procedure. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(11):2725–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518788355.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Thigpen CA, Shanley E, Momaya AM, Kissenberth MJ, Tolan SJ, Tokish JM, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the single alpha-numeric evaluation for shoulder patients. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(14):3480–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518807924.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Wessel RN, Wolterbeek N, Fermont AJM, Lavrijsen L, van Mameren H, de Bie RA. Responsiveness and disease specificity of the Western Ontario rotator cuff index. J Orthop. 2018;15(2):337–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2018.02.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Zhou L, Natarajan M, Miller BS, Gagnier JJ. Establishing minimal important differences for the VR-12 and SANE scores in patients following treatment of rotator cuff tears. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(7):2325967118782159. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118782159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Thoomes-de Graaf M, Scholten-Peeters W, Duijn E, Karel Y, de Vet HC, Koes B, et al. The responsiveness and interpretability of the shoulder pain and disability index. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(4):278–86. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2017.7079.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Rysstad T, Roe Y, Haldorsen B, Svege I, Strand LI. Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Norwegian version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH) in patients with subacromial pain syndrome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):248. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1616-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Tashjian RZ, Hung M, Keener JD, Bowen RC, McAllister J, Chen W, et al. Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American shoulder and elbow surgeons score, simple shoulder test, and visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26(1):144–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.06.007.CrossRef

39.

van der Linde JA, van Kampen DA, van Beers L, van Deurzen DFP, Saris DBF, Terwee CB. The responsiveness and minimal important change of the Western Ontario shoulder instability index and Oxford shoulder instability score. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(6):402–10. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2017.6548.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Torrens C, Guirro P, Santana F. The minimal clinically important difference for function and strength in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(2):262–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.07.020.CrossRef

41.

van de Water AT, Davidson M, Shields N, Evans MC, Taylor NF. The shoulder function index (SFInX): evaluation of its measurement properties in people recovering from a proximal humeral fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:295. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1138-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Werner BC, Chang B, Nguyen JT, Dines DM, Gulotta LV. What change in American shoulder and elbow surgeons score represents a clinically important change after shoulder arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(12):2672–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4968-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Wong SE, Zhang AL, Berliner JL, Ma CB, Feeley BT. Preoperative patient-reported scores can predict postoperative outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(6):913–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.01.029.CrossRef

44.

Christiansen DH, Frost P, Falla D, Haahr JP, Frich LH, Svendsen SW. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important change: a comparison between 2 shoulder outcome measures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(8):620–5. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2015.5760.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Iossifidis A, Ibrahim EF, Petrou C, Galanos A. The development and validation of a questionnaire for rotator cuff disorders: the functional shoulder score. Should Elb. 2015;7(4):256–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573215578589.CrossRef

46.

Negahban H, Behtash Z, Sohani SM, Salehi R. Responsiveness of two Persian-versions of shoulder outcome measures following physiotherapy intervention in patients with shoulder disorders. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(24):2300–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1005760.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Castricini R, Longo UG, De Benedetto M, Loppini M, Zini R, Maffulli N, et al. Arthroscopic-assisted latissimus dorsi transfer for the management of irreparable rotator cuff tears: short-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(14):e119–-6. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01091.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Holmgren T, Oberg B, Adolfsson L, Bjornsson Hallgren H, Johansson K. Minimal important changes in the Constant-Murley score in patients with subacromial pain. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23(8):1083–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.014.CrossRef

49.

Koehorst ML, van Trijffel E, Lindeboom R. Evaluative measurement properties of the patient-specific functional scale for primary shoulder complaints in physical therapy practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(8):595–603. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2014.5133.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Lundquist CB, Dossing K, Christiansen DH. Responsiveness of a Danish version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire. Dan Med J. 2014;61(4):A4813.PubMed

51.

Skare O, Mowinckel P, Schroder CP, Liavaag S, Reikeras O, Brox JI. Responsiveness of outcome measures in patients with superior labral anterior and posterior lesions. Should Elb. 2014;6(4):262–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573214534650.CrossRef

52.

van de Water AT, Shields N, Davidson M, Evans M, Taylor NF. Reliability and validity of shoulder function outcome measures in people with a proximal humeral fracture. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(13):1072–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.829529.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, Joukainen A, Aarimaa V. Investigating minimal clinically important difference for constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22(12):1650–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.002.CrossRef

54.

van Kampen DA, Willems WJ, van Beers LW, Castelein RM, Scholtes VA, Terwee CB. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg Res. 2013;8:40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-8-40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Christie A, Dagfinrud H, Garratt AM, Ringen Osnes H, Hagen KB. Identification of shoulder-specific patient acceptable symptom state in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing shoulder surgery. J Hand Ther. 2011;24(1):53–60; quiz 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2010.10.006.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Michener LA, Snyder AR, Leggin BG. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain and the effect of surgical status. J Sport Rehabil. 2011;20(1):115–28. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.20.1.115.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Ekeberg OM, Bautz-Holter E, Keller A, Tveita EK, Juel NG, Brox JI. A questionnaire found disease-specific WORC index is not more responsive than SPADI and OSS in rotator cuff disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):575–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.07.012.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Roy JS, Macdermid JC, Faber KJ, Drosdowech DS, Athwal GS. The simple shoulder test is responsive in assessing change following shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(7):413–21. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2010.3209.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(2):296–303. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01296.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Mintken PE, Glynn P, Cleland JA. Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2009;18(6):920–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.015.CrossRef

61.

Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Porucznik CA, Powell AP. Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2009;18(6):927–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.021.CrossRef

62.

Moser JS, Barker KL, Doll HA, Carr AJ. Comparison of two patient-based outcome measures for shoulder instability after nonoperative treatment. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2008;17(6):886–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.05.040.CrossRef

63.

Leggin BG, Michener LA, Shaffer MA, Brenneman SK, Iannotti JP, Williams GR Jr. The Penn shoulder score: reliability and validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(3):138–51. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2006.36.3.138.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Paul A, Lewis M, Shadforth MF, Croft PR, Van Der Windt DA, Hay EM. A comparison of four shoulder-specific questionnaires in primary care. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(10):1293–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2003.012088.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American shoulder and elbow surgeons standardized shoulder assessment form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2002;11(6):587–94. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2002.127096.CrossRef

66.

Simovitch R, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD, Roche CP. Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinical benefit. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2018;27(5):903–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.014.CrossRef

67.

Michener LA, Snyder Valier AR, McClure PW. Defining substantial clinical benefit for patient-rated outcome tools for shoulder impingement syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(4):725–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.11.011.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Tran G, Dube B, Kingsbury SR, Tennant A, Conaghan PG, Hensor EMA. Investigating the patient acceptable symptom state cut-offs: longitudinal data from a community cohort using the shoulder pain and disability index. Rheumatol Int. 2020;40(4):599–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04486-3.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Chamberlain AM, Hung M, Chen W, Keener JD, McAllister J, Ebersole G, et al. Determining the patient acceptable symptomatic state for the ASES, SST, and VAS pain after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast. 2017;1:247154921772004. https://doi.org/10.1177/2471549217720042.CrossRef

70.

Sciascia AD, Morris BJ, Jacobs CA, Edwards TB. Responsiveness and internal validity of common patient-reported outcome measures following total shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2017;40(3):e513–e9. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20170327-02.CrossRefPubMed

71.

O'Halloran B, Wright A, Cook CE. Criterion validation of the rate of recovery, a single alphanumeric measure, in patients with shoulder pain. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2013;8(6):784–92.PubMedPubMedCentral

72.

Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(1):90–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10.CrossRef

73.

Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Beaton DE, van Eerd D, Smith P, van der Velde G, Cullen K, Kennedy CA, et al. Minimal change is sensitive, less specific to recovery: a diagnostic testing approach to interpretability. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(5):487–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.012.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Copay AG, Chung AS, Eyberg B, Olmscheid N, Chutkan N, Spangehl MJ. Minimum clinically important difference: current trends in the orthopaedic literature, part I: upper extremity: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. 2018;6(9):e1. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00159.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Ward MM, Guthrie LC, Alba M. Domain-specific transition questions demonstrated higher validity than global transition questions as anchors for clinically important improvement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):655–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

77.

Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):34–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2004.023028.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Hawkins RJ, Thigpen CA. Selection, implementation, and interpretation of patient-centered shoulder and elbow outcomes. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2018;27(2):357–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.022.CrossRef

79.

Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Constant-Murley score. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19(1):157–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.04.008.CrossRef

80.

Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review
verfasst von: Favian Su
Sachin Allahabadi
Dale N. Bongbong
Brian T. Feeley
Drew A. Lansdown
Publikationsdatum: 12.01.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Ausgabe 1/2021
Elektronische ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09684-2

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

23.04.2024 | Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose of the Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose of the Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

Minimally Invasive Surgery: Is There a Role in Distal Radius Fracture Management?

Graft Options in Hip Labral Reconstruction

Patient Education in Orthopedics: the Role of Information Design and User Experience

Femoral Stem Cementation in Hip Arthroplasty: The Know-How of a “Lost” Art

Non-operative Management of Anterior Knee Pain: Patient Education

Tibial Torsion and Patellofemoral Pain and Instability in the Adult Population: Current Concept Review

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie