Responsiveness and minimal clinically important change: A comparison between 2 Shoulder outcome measures

Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy

Volumn 45, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 620-625

  Christiansen, David Høyrup ^a   Frost, Poul ^b   Falla, Deborah ^c,d   Haahr, Jens Peder ^a   Frich, Lars Henrik ^e   Svendsen, Susanne Wulff ^a  

^a Regional Hospital West Jutland University Clinic   (Denmark)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^d BERNSTEIN CENTER FOR COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE   (Germany)

^e ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Acromioplasty; Outcome measure; Shoulder; Subacromial decompression; Subacromial impingement syndrome

Indexed keywords

ARTHROSCOPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SHOULDER IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME; SHOULDER PAIN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ARTHROSCOPY; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SHOULDER IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME; SHOULDER PAIN; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84938909946     PISSN: 01906011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2015.5760     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Allom R, Colegate-Stone T, Gee M, Ismail M, Sinha J. Outcome analysis of surgery for disorders of the rotator cuff: a comparison of subjective and objective scoring tools. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:367-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B3.20714
2. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
3. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:355-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022
4. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:160-164.
5. Dawson J, Hill G, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The benefits of using patient-based methods of assessment. Medium-term results of an observational study of shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:877-882.
6. Dawson J, Rogers K, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The Oxford shoulder score revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:119-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0549-7
7. De Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distributionbased approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:131-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9109-9
8. Ekeberg OM, Bautz-Holter E, Keller A, Tveitå EK, Juel NG, Brox JI. A questionnaire found diseasespecific WORC index is not more responsive than SPADI and OSS in rotator cuff disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:575-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.07.012
9. Ekeberg OM, Bautz-Holter E, Tveitå EK, Keller A, Juel NG, Brox JI. Agreement, reliability and validity in 3 shoulder questionnaires in patients with rotator cuff disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-68
10. Holmgren T, Öberg B, Adolfsson L, Björnsson Hallgren H, Johansson K. Minimal important changes in the Constant-Murley score in patients with subacromial pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:1083-1090. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.014
11. Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, Joukainen A, Äärimaa V. Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:1650-1655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.002
12. Moeller AD, Thorsen RR, Torabi T P, et al. The Danish version of the modified Constant-Murley shoulder score: reliability, agreement, and construct validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44:336-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2014.5008
13. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22
14. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:90-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10
15. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2007.03.012
16. Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Constant-Murley score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19:157-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.04.008
17. Terwee CB, Bot SD, De Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
18. Svendsen SW, Christiansen DH, Haahr J P, Andrea LC, Frost P. Shoulder function and work disability after decompression surgery for subacromial impingement syndrome: a randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy exercises and occupational medical assistance. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-215.
19. Van Kampen DA, Willems WJ, Van Beers LW, Castelein RM, Scholtes VA, Terwee CB. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg Res. 2013;8:40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-8-40
20. Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen J, Gudex C, Pedersen KM. Generation of a Danish O value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Public Health. 2009;37:459-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1403494809105287