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
  • [41] Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff
    Lo, IKY
    Burkhart, SS
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2003, 19 (09): : 1035 - 1042
  • [42] No Difference in Postoperative Pain After Arthroscopic versus Open Rotator Cuff Repair
    Williams, Gerald, Jr.
    Kraeutler, Matthew J.
    Zmistowski, Benjamin
    Fenlin, John M., Jr.
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2014, 472 (09) : 2759 - 2765
  • [43] Establishing minimal clinically important differences for scores on the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory for inpatient rehabilitation
    Iyer, LV
    Haley, SM
    Watkins, MP
    Dumas, HM
    PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2003, 83 (10): : 888 - 898
  • [44] Achievement of the minimal clinically important difference following open proximal hamstring repair
    Lawton, Cort D.
    Sullivan, Spencer W.
    Hancock, Kyle J.
    Burger, Joost A.
    Nawabi, Danyal H.
    Kelly, Bryan T.
    Ranawat, Anil S.
    Nwachukwu, Benedict U.
    JOURNAL OF HIP PRESERVATION SURGERY, 2022, 8 (04): : 348 - 353
  • [45] Time Required to Achieve Clinically Significant Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
    Manderle, Brandon J.
    Gowd, Anirudh K.
    Liu, Joseph N.
    Beletsky, Alexander
    Nwachukwu, Benedict U.
    Nicholson, Gregory P.
    Bush-Joseph, Charles
    Romeo, Anthony A.
    Forsythe, Brian
    Cole, Brian J.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2020, 48 (14): : 3447 - 3453
  • [46] Clinically Important Difference in Quality of Recovery Scores
    Myles, Paul S.
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2016, 122 (01): : 13 - 14
  • [47] Establishing minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after biceps tenodesis
    Puzzitiello, Richard N.
    Gowd, Anirudh K.
    Liu, Joseph N.
    Agarwalla, Avinesh
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    Forsythe, Brian
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2019, 28 (04) : 639 - 647
  • [48] Establishing Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Sleep Outcomes after Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain Disorders
    Johansen, Phillip M.
    Trujillo, Frank A.
    Hagerty, Vivian
    Harland, Tessa
    Davis, Gregory
    Pilitsis, Julie G.
    STEREOTACTIC AND FUNCTIONAL NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 101 (01) : 41 - 46
  • [49] Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State After Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair for Posterior Glenohumeral Instability
    Scanaliato, John P.
    Green, Clare K.
    Sandler, Alexis B.
    Hurley, Eoghan T.
    Hettrich, Carolyn M.
    Parnes, Nata
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2024, 52 (01): : 207 - 214
  • [50] Establishing the minimal clinically important difference for the Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey (HerQLes)
    Renshaw, Savannah M.
    Gupta, Anand
    Poulose, Benjamin K.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 223 (02): : 245 - 249