Variability of MCID, SCB, and PASS Thresholds in Studies Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review.
| Autor: | Lee, Alexander C., Gupta, Radhika, Kelly IV, John D., Li, Xinning, Parisien, Robert L. |
|---|---|
| Předmět: |
CONTINUING education units
MEDICAL information storage & retrieval systems QUESTIONNAIRES FUNCTIONAL assessment TREATMENT effectiveness SYSTEMATIC reviews MEDLINE ROTATOR cuff injuries MEDICAL databases HEALTH outcome assessment ONLINE information services RANGE of motion of joints ACTIVITIES of daily living EVALUATION |
| Zdroj: | American Journal of Sports Medicine; Jul2024, Vol. 52 Issue 9, p2424-2432, 9p |
| Abstrakt: | Background: An increasing reliance on patient-reported outcomes has led to greater emphasis on minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds in assessing rotator cuff repairs. Purpose: To review the MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds reported for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after rotator cuff repair. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were queried for full-text journal articles in English published between January 1, 2000, and May 31, 2022. Studies with MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds reported for patients with rotator cuff repair and a minimum of 12 months of follow-up were included. Reported MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds and associated calculation methods were extracted. Results: There were 41 unique studies (6331 shoulders) that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 37 (90%) reported MCID; 16 (39%), PASS; and 11 (27%), SCB values. The most common PROMs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and the Constant-Murley score. In total, 71% (29/41) of these studies referenced values in the literature, usually studies of patients undergoing rotator cuff repair (21/29). Twelve studies calculated MCID, SCB, or PASS thresholds using anchor-based approaches, whereas 6 studies also calculated thresholds using distribution-based methods. The use of MCID, SCB, and PASS in the rotator cuff repair literature is increasing, with half of the included studies published within the final 17 months of the studied period. Conclusion: Significant variability was seen in the reporting of MCID, SCB, and PASS threshold values after rotator cuff repair. Researchers should prioritize studies that report clinical outcome thresholds calculated using anchor-based methods and should critically review both the anchor question and its response choices. Standardization of MCID, SCB, and PASS values and calculation methods will allow for a more reliable assessment of PROMs in rotator cuff repair moving forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: | Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|