Establishing minimal clinically important difference for the UCLA and ASES scores after rotator cuff repair

被引:29
|
作者
Malavolta, Eduardo A. [1 ]
Yamamoto, Gustavo J. [1 ]
Bussius, Daniel T. [1 ]
Assuncao, Jorge H. [1 ]
Andrade-Silva, Fernando B. [1 ]
Gracitelli, Mauro E. C. [1 ]
Ferreira Neto, Arnaldo A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sao Paulo, Orthoped & Traumatol Dept, Med Sch, Rua Capote Valente 361,Apto 212, BR-05409001 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
关键词
Minimal clinically important difference (MCID); Anchor-based methods; Distribution methods; University of California at Los Angeles; Shoulder Rating Scale; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; Assessment Form; AMERICAN SHOULDER; ELBOW SURGEONS; RELIABILITY; VALIDITY; OUTCOMES; INDEX;
D O I
10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102894
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background/Hypothesis: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a vital tool in the analysis of clinical results. It allows the determination of clinical relevance of statistical data. Our hypothesis was that specific differences between preoperative and postoperative scores would be able to accurately predict patient perception of improvement and satisfaction as reflected by anchor and distribution-based questions. Methods: Retrospective cohort with patients that underwent rotator cuff repair. We evaluated the University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale (UCLA) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Assessment Form (ASES) before and 12-months after surgery. Anchor-based, distribution-based and minimum detectable change (MDC) approaches were utilized. Results: We evaluated 289 shoulders. The MCID for the UCLA scale was 4.5 points using the anchor method, 2.5 by the distribution method and 3.6 by MDC. Patients with a baseline score > 20 presented a lower MCID (1.5, 1.1 and 1.7, respectively). For the ASES score, the MCID was 6.1 by the anchor method, 10.5 based on the distribution method and 26.3 by MDC. In the group of patients above the 60 point cutoff, the obtained values were 2.4, 4.9 and 13.6, respectively. Conclusion: The mean MCID value for the UCLA shoulder score is 3.5 points, ranging from 2.5 points (distribution method) to 4.5 points (anchor method). The mean MCID value for the ASES score was 15.2 points, ranging from 6.1 (anchor method) to 26.3 (MDC). Patients groups presenting with higher preoperative scores showed lower MCID values. This fact needs to be considered in postoperative comparisons between treatment groups. Level of evidence: Basic Science Study, Validation of Outcomes Instruments/Classification Systems. (c) 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in Patients Who Underwent Rotator Cuff Tear Repair
    Longo, Umile Giuseppe
    Berton, Alessandra
    De Salvatore, Sergio
    Piergentili, Ilaria
    Casciani, Erica
    Faldetta, Aurora
    De Marinis, Maria Grazia
    Denaro, Vincenzo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 18 (16)
  • [22] Defining minimal clinically important difference, patient acceptable symptomatic state and substantial clinical benefit for the visual analog scale pain score after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair
    Zeng, Gerald Joseph
    Moorthy, Vikaesh
    Hao, Ying
    Lie, Denny Tjiauw Tjoen
    JOURNAL OF ISAKOS JOINT DISORDERS & ORTHOPAEDIC SPORTS MEDICINE, 2024, 9 (04) : 592 - 597
  • [23] Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients
    Hsieh, Yu-Wei
    Wang, Chun-Hou
    Wu, Shwu-Chong
    Chen, Pau-Chung
    Sheu, Ching-Fan
    Hsieh, Ching-Lin
    NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR, 2007, 21 (03) : 233 - 238
  • [24] Editorial Commentary: Pain and Stress Response After Shoulder Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Does Interscalene Block Make a Clinically Important Difference?
    Rossi, Michael J.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2017, 33 (05):
  • [25] Establishing Maximal Medical Improvement After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
    Zuke, William A.
    Leroux, Timothy S.
    Gregory, Bonnie P.
    Black, Austin
    Forsythe, Brian
    Romeo, Anthony A.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2018, 46 (04): : 1000 - 1007
  • [26] Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Establishing the Footprint
    Brady, Paul C.
    Arrigoni, Paolo
    Burkhart, Stephen S.
    TECHNIQUES IN SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2005, 6 (04): : 242 - 251
  • [27] Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient-Acceptable Symptomatic State After Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair and Associated Variables for Achievement
    Maheshwer, Bhargavi
    Wong, Stephanie E.
    Polce, Evan M.
    Paul, Katlynn
    Forsythe, Brian
    Bush-Joseph, Charles
    Bach, Bernard R.
    Yanke, Adam B.
    Cole, Brian J.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    Chahla, Jorge
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2021, 37 (12): : 3479 - 3486
  • [28] Minimal Clinically Important Difference
    Gatchel, Robert J.
    Lurie, Jon D.
    Mayer, Tom G.
    SPINE, 2010, 35 (19) : 1739 - 1743
  • [29] Rotator cuff degeneration and healing after rotator cuff repair
    Gumina, Stefano
    Kim, Hyungsuk
    Jung, Younsung
    Song, Hyun Seok
    CLINICS IN SHOULDER AND ELBOW, 2023, 26 (03): : 323 - 329
  • [30] Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference and significant clinical benefit in PROMIS computer adaptive test domains in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair
    Tramer, Joseph S.
    Yedulla, Nikhil R.
    Ziedas, Alexander C.
    Patel, Mit
    Franovic, Sreten
    Muh, Stephanie J.
    Makhni, Eric C.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2022, 31 (07) : 1416 - 1425