Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review to inform a BMJ Rapid Recommendation

BMJ Open

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2019, Pages

  Hao, Qiukui ^a,b   Devji, Tahira ^b   Zeraatkar, Dena ^b   Wang, Yuting ^a,b   Qasim, Anila ^b   Siemieniuk, Reed A C ^b   Vandvik, Per Olav ^c,d   Lähdeoja, Tuomas ^e,f   Carrasco Labra, Alonso ^b   Agoritsas, Thomas ^b,g   Guyatt, Gordon ^b  

^a SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c INNLANDET HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^f HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^g GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

minimal important differences; patient reported outcome measures; shoulder condition

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; DISABILITIES OF THE ARM, SHOULDER AND HAND (SCORE); EUROPEAN QUALITY OF LIFE 5 DIMENSIONS QUESTIONNAIRE; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; JOINT FUNCTION; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE ASSESSMENT; NUMERIC RATING SCALE; OXFORD SHOULDER SCORE; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SHORT FORM 12; SHORT FORM 36; SHOULDER DISABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE; SHOULDER PAIN; SHOULDER SURGERY; SUBACROMIAL DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ANALGESIA; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE;

DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; HUMANS; PAIN MANAGEMENT; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SHOULDER PAIN;

EID: 85061344046     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028777     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Codsi M, Howe CR. Shoulder conditions: diagnosis and treatment guideline. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2015;26:467-89.
2. Walker-Bone KE, Palmer KT, Reading I, et al. Soft-tissue rheumatic disorders of the neck and upper limb: prevalence and risk factors. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2003;33:185-203.
3. Aurora A, McCarron J, Iannotti JP, et al. Commercially available extracellular matrix materials for rotator cuff repairs: state of the art and future trends. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16:S171-8.
4. Campbell M. Problems with large joints: shoulder conditions. FP Essent 2016;446:25-30.
5. Mitchell C, Adebajo A, Hay E, et al. Shoulder pain: diagnosis and management in primary care. BMJ 2005;331:1124-8.
6. Diercks R, Bron C, Dorrestijn O, et al. Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of subacromial pain syndrome: a multidisciplinary review by the dutch orthopaedic association. Acta Orthop 2014;85:314-22.
7. Anker SD, Agewall S, Borggrefe M, et al. The importance of patient-reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2001-9.
8. Payne C, Michener LA. Physiotherapists use of and perspectives on the importance of patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder dysfunction. Shoulder Elbow 2014;6:204-14.
9. Tibaek S, Gadsboell J. Scapula alata: description of a physical therapy program and its effectiveness measured by a shoulder-specific quality-of-life measurement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015;24:482-90.
10. Paavola M, Malmivaara A, Taimela S, et al. Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial. BMJ 2018;362:k2860.
11. Rueda Garrido JC, Vas J, Lopez DR. Acupuncture treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Complement Ther Med 2016;25:92-7.
12. Galace de Freitas D, Marcondes FB, Monteiro RL, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic field and exercises in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014;95:345-52.
13. Moezy A, Sepehrifar S, Solaymani Dodaran M. The effects of scapular stabilization based exercise therapy on pain, posture, flexibility and shoulder mobility in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome: a controlled randomized clinical trial. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2014;28:87.
14. Kinsella R, Cowan SM, Watson L, et al. A comparison of isometric, isotonic concentric and isotonic eccentric exercises in the physiotherapy management of subacromial pain syndrome/rotator cuff tendinopathy: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2017;3:45.
15. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, et al. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316:690-3.
16. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
17. Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary-goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res 2005;40:593-7.
18. Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:69.
19. Guyatt G, Schunemann H. How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Qual Life Res 2007;16:1097-105.
20. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11:171-84.
21. McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA 2014;312:1342-3.
22. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371-83.
23. Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:623-32.
24. Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Porucznik CA, et al. 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 2009;18:927-32.
25. St-Pierre C, Desmeules F, Dionne CE, et al. Psychometric properties of self-reported questionnaires for the evaluation of symptoms and functional limitations in individuals with rotator cuff disorders: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2016;38:103-22.
26. Copay AG, Chung AS, Eyberg B, et al. Minimum clinically important difference: current trends in the orthopaedic literature, Part I: upper extremity: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 2018;6:e1.
27. Olsen MF, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, et al. Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;101:87-106.
28. Siemieniuk RA, Agoritsas T, Macdonald H, et al. Introduction to BMJ rapid recommendations. BMJ 2016;354:i5191.
29. Devji T, Guyatt GH, Lytvyn L, et al. Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations. BMJ Open 2017;7:e015587.
30. Siemieniuk RAC, Harris IA, Agoritsas T, et al. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 2017;357:j1982.
31. Buchbinder R, Page MJ, Huang H, et al. A preliminary core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders: a report from the OMERACT 2016 shoulder core outcome set special interest group. J Rheumatol 2017;44:1880-3.
32. Johnston BC, Ebrahim S, Carrasco-Labra A, et al. Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007953.
33. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987:160-4.
34. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, et al. A review of the constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;17:355-61.
35. Christiansen DH, Frost P, Falla D, et al. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important change: a comparison between 2 shoulder outcome measures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2015;45:620-5.
36. Christie A, Dagfinrud H, Garratt AM, et al. Identification of shoulder-specific patient acceptable symptom state in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing shoulder surgery. J Hand Ther 2011;24:53-61.
37. Dritsaki M, Petrou S, Williams M, et al. An empirical evaluation of the SF-12, SF-6D, EQ-5D and michigan hand outcome questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017;15:20.
38. Ekeberg OM, Bautz-Holter E, Keller A, et al. A questionnaire found disease-specific WORC index is not more responsive than SPADI and OSS in rotator cuff disease. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:575-84.
39. Holmgren T, Oberg B, Adolfsson L, et al. Minimal important changes in the Constant-Murley score in patients with subacromial pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014;23:1083-90.
40. Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, et al. Investigating minimal clinically important difference for constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013;22:1650-5.
41. Mahabier KC, Den Hartog D, Theyskens N, et al. Reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand and constant-murley scores in patients with a humeral shaft fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017;26:e1-12.
42. Michener LA, Snyder AR, Leggin BG. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain and the effect of surgical status. J Sport Rehabil 2011;20:115-28.
43. Mintken PE, Glynn P, Cleland JA. 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 2009;18:920-6.
44. Negahban H, Behtash Z, Sohani SM, et al. Responsiveness of two Persian-versions of shoulder outcome measures following physiotherapy intervention in patients with shoulder disorders. Disabil Rehabil 2015;37:2300-4.
45. Rysstad T, Røe Y, Haldorsen B, et al. Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Norwegian version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) in patients with subacromial pain syndrome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18:248.
46. Simovitch R, Flurin PH, Wright T, et al. Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018;27:298-305.
47. Tashjian RZ, Hung M, Keener JD, et al. 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. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017;26:144-8.
48. Tubach F, Dougados M, Falissard B, et al. Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:526-30.
49. van de Water AT, Shields N, Davidson M, et al. Reliability and validity of shoulder function outcome measures in people with a proximal humeral fracture. Disabil Rehabil 2014;36:1072-9.
50. Lundquist CB, Døssing K, Christiansen DH. Responsiveness of a Danish version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Dan Med J 2014;61:A4813.
51. Marks M, Audigé L, Herren DB, et al. Measurement properties of the german michigan hand outcomes questionnaire in patients with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2014;66:245-52.
52. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:1008-18.
53. Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, et al. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:296-303.
54. van Kampen DA, Willems WJ, van Beers LW, et al. 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.
55. Castricini R, Longo UG, De Benedetto M, et al. Arthroscopic-assisted latissimus dorsi transfer for the management of irreparable rotator cuff tears: short-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:e119.
56. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;82:128-36.
57. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:102-9.
58. Angst F, Benz T, Lehmann S, et al. Multidimensional minimal clinically important differences in knee osteoarthritis after comprehensive rehabilitation: a prospective evaluation from the bad zurzach osteoarthritis study. RMD Open 2018;4:e000685.