Literature DB >> 34588833

Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) for the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS).

Marc Randall Kristensen Nyring1, Bo Sanderhoff Olsen1, Alexander Amundsen1, Jeppe Vejlgaard Rasmussen1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an important instrument in the interpretation of changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). To our knowledge, no MCID of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) score has ever been reported and no studies have reported an MCID for the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) based on patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, treated with an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The aim of this study was to determine MCID for WOOS and OSS in a cohort of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA.
METHODS: All patients treated with an aTSA for glenohumeral osteoarthritis at our institution between March 2017 and February 2019 were included. Each patient completed the WOOS and the OSS preoperatively and one year postoperatively. At one year, the patients were asked to rate their overall improvement on a 7-point scale. We used an anchor-based method as our primary method to calculate the MCID, supported by two different distribution-based methods.
RESULTS: A total of 45 primary aTSA were included. The MCID of WOOS was 12.3 according to the anchor-based method and 14.2 and 10.3 according to the two distribution-based methods. The MCID of OSS was 4.3 according to the anchor-based method and 5.8 and 4.3 according to the two distribution-based methods.
CONCLUSION: The anchor-based method is considered superior to the distribution-based method, and therefore we advocate to use this as MCID. For patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA, the MCID values were 12.3 points for WOOS and 4.3 points for OSS. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report a MCID value for WOOS and the first study to report a MCID value for OSS in this subgroup of patients.
© 2021 Nyring et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty; glenohumeral osteoarthritis; minimal clinically important difference; patient reported outcome measures

Year:  2021        PMID: 34588833      PMCID: PMC8473013          DOI: 10.2147/PROM.S316920

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas        ISSN: 1179-271X


  34 in total

1.  Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  K W Wyrwich; N A Nienaber; W M Tierney; F D Wolinsky
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Fatty degeneration of the muscles of the rotator cuff: assessment by computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  B Fuchs; D Weishaupt; M Zanetti; J Hodler; C Gerber
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 3.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty and Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients 70 Years and Older With Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis and an Intact Rotator Cuff.

Authors:  Melissa A Wright; Jay D Keener; Aaron M Chamberlain
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 3.020

5.  Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery.

Authors:  Juha Kukkonen; Tommi Kauko; Tero Vahlberg; Antti Joukainen; Ville Aärimaa
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-07-12       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Matthew J Boyle; Seung-Min Youn; Christopher M A Frampton; Craig M Ball
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.019

7.  Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs) of the Thai Version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire for Subacute and Chronic Cough.

Authors:  Prapaporn Pornsuriyasak; Poungrat Thungtitigul; Theerasuk Kawamatawong; Surinder S Birring; Tipaporn Pongmesa
Journal:  Value Health Reg Issues       Date:  2017-05-04

8.  Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection?

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.051

9.  How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure.

Authors:  Jan L Brozek; Gordon H Guyatt; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Authors:  Derk A van Kampen; W Jaap Willems; Loes W A H van Beers; Rene M Castelein; Vanessa A B Scholtes; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 2.359

View more
  4 in total

1.  Previous surgery for instability is a risk factor for a worse patient-reported outcome after anatomical shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a Danish nationwide cohort study of 3,743 arthroplasties.

Authors:  Jeppe V Rasmussen; Bo S Olsen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 3.925

2.  Implant migration and functional outcome of Reverse Shoulder Lateralized Glenosphere Line Extension System: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Marie Louise Jensen; Bo S Olsen; Marc R K Nyring; Müjgan Yilmaz; Michael M Petersen; Gunnar Flivik; Jeppe V Rasmussen
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 2.728

3.  Are progressive shoulder exercises feasible in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy?

Authors:  Josefine Beck Larsen; Helle Kvistgaard Østergaard; Theis Muncholm Thillemann; Thomas Falstie-Jensen; Lisa Cecilie Urup Reimer; Sidsel Noe; Steen Lund Jensen; Inger Mechlenburg
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2022-08-03

4.  Short-term survival and patient-reported outcome of total stemless shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis are similar to that of stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty: a study from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry.

Authors:  Zaid Issa; Stig Brorson; Jeppe Vejlgaard Rasmussen
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2022-06-28
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.