Literature DB >> 31318747

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Shoulder Outcome Measures and Diagnoses: A Systematic Review.

Dominique I Dabija1, Nitin B Jain.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcome scales determine response to treatment. The minimal clinically important difference of these scales is a measure of responsiveness: the smallest change in a score associated with a clinically important change to the patient. This study sought to summarize the literature on minimal clinically important difference for the most commonly reported shoulder outcome scales.
DESIGN: A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE databases identified 193 citations, 27 of which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
RESULTS: For rotator cuff tears, a minimal clinically important difference range of 9-26.9 was reported for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 8 or 10 for Constant, and 282.6-588.7 for the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. For patients who underwent arthroplasty, a minimal clinically important difference range of 6.3-20.9 was reported for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 5.7-9.4 for Constant, and 14.1-20.6 for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. For proximal humeral fractures, a minimal clinically important difference range of 5.4-11.6 was reported for Constant and 8.1-13.0 for Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand.
CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of minimal clinically important difference values was reported for each patient population and instrument. In the future, a uniform outcome instrument and minimal clinically important difference will be useful to measure clinically meaningful change across practices and the spectrum of shoulder diagnoses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31318747      PMCID: PMC6649681          DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001169

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0894-9115            Impact factor:   2.159


  30 in total

1.  American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

Authors:  Lori A Michener; Philip W McClure; Brian J Sennett
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

Authors:  Karem Slim; Emile Nini; Damien Forestier; Fabrice Kwiatkowski; Yves Panis; Jacques Chipponi
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.872

3.  Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients.

Authors:  Florence Tubach; Maxime Dougados; Bruno Falissard; Gabriel Baron; Isabelle Logeart; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-08-15

4.  The Penn shoulder score: reliability and validity.

Authors:  Brian G Leggin; Lori A Michener; Michael A Shaffer; Susan K Brenneman; Joseph P Iannotti; Gerald R Williams
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.751

5.  Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria.

Authors:  John S Schmitt; Richard P Di Fabio
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Development and psychometric evaluation of the Flexilevel Scale of Shoulder Function.

Authors:  Karon F Cook; Toni S Roddey; Gary M Gartsman; Sharon L Olson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain.

Authors:  Paul E Mintken; Paul Glynn; Joshua A Cleland
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Comparison of two patient-based outcome measures for shoulder instability after nonoperative treatment.

Authors:  Jane S Moser; Karen L Barker; Helen A Doll; Andrew J Carr
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 9.  Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder.

Authors:  Alexandra Kirkley; Sharon Griffin; Katie Dainty
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.772

10.  A comparison of four shoulder-specific questionnaires in primary care.

Authors:  A Paul; M Lewis; M F Shadforth; P R Croft; D A W M Van Der Windt; E M Hay
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 19.103

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  The Benefits and Harms of Early Mobilization and Supervised Exercise Therapy after Non-surgically Treated Proximal Humerus or Distal Radius fracture: A systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Helle K Østergaard; Inger Mechlenburg; Antti P Launonen; Marianne T Vestermark; Ville M Mattila; Ville T Ponkilainen
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2021-03-10

Review 2.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Favian Su; Sachin Allahabadi; Dale N Bongbong; Brian T Feeley; Drew A Lansdown
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2021-01-12

3.  Comparison of functional outcome and complications of locking plate versus coracoclavicular fixation in the treatment of unstable distal clavicle fractures: the multicenter, propensity-matched TRON study.

Authors:  Yujiro Katayama; Yasuhiko Takegami; Katsuhiro Tokutake; Nobuyuki Okui; Tadahiro Sakai; Hiroshi Takahashi; Shiro Imagama
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-08-15

4.  Clinical outcomes of cemented vs. uncemented reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review.

Authors:  David S Kao; Omar A Protzuk; Robert S O'Connell
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-10-02

5.  Anatomic reconstruction of the coracoclavicular and acromioclavicular ligaments with semitendinosus tendon graft for the treatment of chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocation provides good clinical and radiological results.

Authors:  Maristella F Saccomanno; Giacomo Marchi; Fabrizio Mocini; Valeria Vismara; Vincenzo Campana; Andrea G Salvi; Alessandra Scaini; Giuseppe Milano
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 6.  Kinesio taping for rotator cuff disease.

Authors:  Silvia Gianola; Valerio Iannicelli; Edoardo Fascio; Anita Andreano; Linda C Li; Maria Grazia Valsecchi; Lorenzo Moja; Greta Castellini
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-08-08

7.  Comparison of the Effects of Proximal Humeral Internal Locking System (PHILOS) Alone and PHILOS Combined with Fibular Allograft in the Treatment of Neer Three- or Four-part Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly.

Authors:  Lei Zhao; Yi-Min Qi; Lei Yang; Gang-Rui Wang; Sheng-Nai Zheng; Qiang Wang; Bin Liang; Chun-Zhi Jiang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-11-24       Impact factor: 2.071

8.  Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

Authors:  Kari Kanto; Tuomas Lähdeoja; Mika Paavola; Pasi Aronen; Teppo L N Järvinen; Jarkko Jokihaara; Clare L Ardern; Teemu V Karjalainen; Simo Taimela
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  The minimal important change for the seven-item disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH 7) questionnaire - Assessing shoulder function in patients with subacromial pain.

Authors:  Jenny M Nordqvist; Theresa M Holmgren; Lars E Adolfsson; Birgitta E Öberg; Kajsa M Johansson
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-03-23

10.  Modified Weaver-Dunn Procedure for Type 3 Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation: Functional and Radiological Outcomes.

Authors:  Olimpio Galasso; Lorenzo Tarducci; Massimo De Benedetto; Nicola Orlando; Michele Mercurio; Giorgio Gasparini; Roberto Castricini
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-03-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.