BACKGROUND: The MCID is the smallest difference in an outcome score which a patient perceives as beneficial. The PASS is the score below which patients consider themselves well. The purpose of this study was to determine the MCID and PASS for a visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 81 patients with rotator cuff disease were evaluated after 6 weeks of non-operative treatment with a VAS measuring pain and two transition questions utilized in determining the MCID and PASS. RESULTS: The MCID and PASS were estimated to be 1.4 cm (P = .0255) and 3 cm (95% CI - 22.69, 37.31) on a 10 cm VAS measuring pain, respectively. Age (P = .0492) and hand-dominance (P = .0325) affected the MCID while age (P = .0376) and duration of follow-up (P = .0131) affected the PASS. DISCUSSION: The MCID and PASS estimates provide the basis to determine if statistically significant changes in VAS pain scores after treatment are clinically important and if the treatment allowed patients to achieve a satisfactory state. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3; Nonconsecutive series of patients, diagnostic study.
BACKGROUND: The MCID is the smallest difference in an outcome score which a patient perceives as beneficial. The PASS is the score below which patients consider themselves well. The purpose of this study was to determine the MCID and PASS for a visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 81 patients with rotator cuff disease were evaluated after 6 weeks of non-operative treatment with a VAS measuring pain and two transition questions utilized in determining the MCID and PASS. RESULTS: The MCID and PASS were estimated to be 1.4 cm (P = .0255) and 3 cm (95% CI - 22.69, 37.31) on a 10 cm VAS measuring pain, respectively. Age (P = .0492) and hand-dominance (P = .0325) affected the MCID while age (P = .0376) and duration of follow-up (P = .0131) affected the PASS. DISCUSSION: The MCID and PASS estimates provide the basis to determine if statistically significant changes in VAS pain scores after treatment are clinically important and if the treatment allowed patients to achieve a satisfactory state. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3; Nonconsecutive series of patients, diagnostic study.
Authors: C Quinten; C Kenis; L Decoster; P R Debruyne; I De Groof; C Focan; F Cornelis; V Verschaeve; C Bachmann; D Bron; S Luce; G Debugne; H Van den Bulck; J C Goeminne; A Baitar; K Geboers; B Petit; C Langenaeken; R Van Rijswijk; P Specenier; G Jerusalem; J P Praet; K Vandenborre; M Lycke; J Flamaing; K Milisen; J P Lobelle; H Wildiers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Gregory L Cvetanovich; Peter N Chalmers; Jonathan J Streit; Anthony A Romeo; Gregory P Nicholson Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Bert M Chesworth; Clayon B Hamilton; David M Walton; Melissa Benoit; Tracy A Blake; Heather Bredy; Cameron Burns; Lianne Chan; Elizabeth Frey; Graham Gillies; Teresa Gravelle; Rick Ho; Robert Holmes; Roland L J Lavallée; Melanie MacKinnon; Alishah Jamal Merchant; Tammy Sherman; Kelly Spears; Darryl Yardley Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2014 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Michael Q Potter; James D Wylie; Erin K Granger; Patrick E Greis; Robert T Burks; Robert Z Tashjian Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: John Heydemann; Braden Hartline; Mary Elizabeth Gibson; Catherine G Ambrose; John W Munz; Matthew Galpin; Timothy S Achor; Joshua L Gary Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jeffrey G Stepan; Daniel A London; Daniel A Osei; Martin I Boyer; Agnes Z Dardas; Ryan P Calfee Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Victor A van de Graaf; Julia C A Noorduyn; Nienke W Willigenburg; Ise K Butter; Arthur de Gast; Ben W Mol; Daniel B F Saris; Jos W R Twisk; Rudolf W Poolman Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 56.272