Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 144-148

  Tashjian, Robert Z ^a   Hung, Man ^a   Keener, Jay D ^b   Bowen, Randy Christopher ^a   McAllister, Jared ^b   Chen, Wei ^a   Ebersole, Gregory ^b   Granger, Erin K ^a   Chamberlain, Aaron M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

ASES score; function; minimal clinically important difference; outcome scores; pain; Shoulder arthroplasty; Simple Shoulder Test

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMERICAN SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGEONS SCORE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEMIARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVERSE SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY; ROTATOR CUFF INJURY; SHOULDER ARTHRITIS; SHOULDER PAIN; SIMPLE SHOULDER TEST; TOTAL SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; AGED; COMPLICATION; CONVALESCENCE; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; JOINT DISEASES; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SHOULDER; SHOULDER REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, SHOULDER; FEMALE; HUMANS; JOINT DISEASES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SHOULDER JOINT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84995937428     PISSN: 10582746     EISSN: 15326500     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.06.007     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. 1 Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S., Aeschlimann, A., Schwyzer, H.K., Simmen, B.R., Responsiveness of six outcome assessment instruments in total shoulder arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum 59 (2008), 391–398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.23318.
2. 2 Beaton, D., Richards, R.R., Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7 (1998), 565–572.
3. 3 Brozek, J.L., Guyatt, G.H., Schünemann, H.J., How well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labeling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 4, 2006, 69 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-69.
4. 4 Churchill, R.S., Zellmer, C., Zimmers, H.J., Ruggero, R., Clinical and radiographic analysis of a partially cemented glenoid implant: five-year minimum follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19 (2010), 1091–1097 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.12.022.
5. 5 Cuff, D., Pupello, D., Virani, N., Levy, J., Frankle, M., Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90 (2008), 1244–1251 http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00775.
6. 6 Franchignoni, F., Vercelli, S., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Bravini, E., Ferriero, G., Minimal clinically important difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44 (2014), 30–39 http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2014.4893.
7. 7 Godfrey, J., Hamman, R., Lowenstein, S., Briggs, K., Kocher, M., Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simple shoulder test: psychometric properties by age and injury type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16 (2007), 260–267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.07.003.
8. 8 Guyatt, G.H., Feeny, D.H., Patrick, D., Proceedings of the International Conference on the Measurement of Quality of Life as an Outcome in Clinical Trials: postscript. Control Clin Trials 12 (1991), 266S–269S.
9. 9 Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., Guyatt, G.H., Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials, 10, 1989, 407.
10. 10 Kukkonen, J., Kauko, T., Vahlberg, T., Joukainen, A., Aärimaa, V., Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22 (2013), 1650–1655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.002.
11. 11 Leggin, B.G., Michener, L.A., Shaffer, M.A., Brenneman, S.K., Iannotti, J.P., Williams, G.R. Jr, The Penn shoulder score: reliability and validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36 (2006), 138–151 http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2006.36.3.138.
12. 12 Lippitt, S.B., Harryman, D.T., Matsen, F.A., A practical tool for evaluating function: the simple shoulder test. Matsen, F.A., Fu, F.H., Hawkins, R.J., (eds.) The shoulder: A balance of mobility and stability, 1993, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, IL, 501–518.
13. 13 Michener, L.A., McClure, P.W., Sennett, B.J., American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11 (2002), 587–594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mse.2002.127096.
14. 14 Mintken, P.E., Glynn, P., Cleland, J.A., Psychometric properties of the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18 (2009), 920–926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.015.
15. 15 Parks, D.K., Casagrande, D.J., Schrumpf, M.A., Harmsen, S.M., Norris, T.R., Kelly, J.D. II., Radiographic and clinical outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty with an all-polyethylene pegged ingrowth glenoid component: prospective short- to medium-term follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25 (2016), 246–255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.07.008.
16. 16 Richards, R.R., An, K.N., Bigliani, L.U., Freidman, R.J., Gartsman, G.M., Gristina, A.G., et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3 (1994), 347–352.
17. 17 Roy, J.S., Macdermid, J.C., Faber, K.J., Drosdowech, D.S., Athwal, G.S., The simple shoulder test is responsive in assessing change following shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 40 (2010), 413–421 http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2010.3209.
18. 18 Tashjian, R.Z., Deloach, J., Green, A., Porucznik, C.A., Powell, A.P., Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92 (2010), 296–303 http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01296.
19. 19 Tashjian, R.Z., Deloach, J., Porucznik, C.A., Powell, A.P., Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18 (2009), 927–932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.021.
20. 20 Torrens, C., Guirro, P., Santana, F., The minimal clinically important difference for function and strength in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25 (2016), 262–268 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.07.020.
21. 21 Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Baron, G., Falissard, B., Logeart, I., Bellamy, N., et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 64 (2005), 29–33 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2004.022905.
22. 22 Wyrwich, K.W., Tierney, W.M., Wolinsky, F.D., Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52 (1999), 861–873.