Display options
Cite
Louwerens JKG, van den Bekerom MPJ, van Royen BJ, et al. Quantifying the minimal and substantial clinical benefit of the Constant-Murley score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff. JSES Int. 2020;4(3):606-611doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.05.001.
Louwerens, J. K. G., van den Bekerom, M. P. J., van Royen, B. J., Eygendaal, D., van Noort, A., & Sierevelt, I. N. (2020). Quantifying the minimal and substantial clinical benefit of the Constant-Murley score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff. JSES international, 4(3), 606-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2020.05.001
Louwerens, Jan K G, et al. "Quantifying the minimal and substantial clinical benefit of the Constant-Murley score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff." JSES international vol. 4,3 (2020): 606-611. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2020.05.001
Louwerens JKG, van den Bekerom MPJ, van Royen BJ, Eygendaal D, van Noort A, Sierevelt IN. Quantifying the minimal and substantial clinical benefit of the Constant-Murley score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff. JSES Int. 2020 Jun 06;4(3):606-611. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.05.001. eCollection 2020 Sep. PMID: 32939494; PMCID: PMC7479032.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

JSES Int. 2020 Jun 06;4(3):606-611. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.05.001. eCollection 2020 Sep.

Quantifying the minimal and substantial clinical benefit of the Constant-Murley score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff.

JSES international

Jan K G Louwerens, Michel P J van den Bekerom, Barend J van Royen, Denise Eygendaal, Arthur van Noort, Inger N Sierevelt

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (OLVG), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amphia, Breda, The Netherlands.

PMID: 32939494 PMCID: PMC7479032 DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.05.001

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To aid the interpretation of clinical outcome scores, it is important to determine the measurement properties. The aim of this study was to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the Constant-Murley score and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with long-lasting rotator cuff calcific tendinitis treated with high-energy extracorporeal shockwave therapy and ultrasound guided needling. The secondary purpose was to assess the responsiveness of both questionnaires and to identify variables associated with achieving the MCID and SCB.

METHODS: A prospective cohort of 80 patients with rotator cuff calcific tendinitis was analyzed. Two anchor-based methods were used to calculate the MCID and SCB. Effect sizes and standardized response means were calculated to assess the responsiveness. Additional univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the achievement of the MCID and SCB.

RESULTS: For the Constant-Murley score, we found an MCID and SCB of 9.8 and 19.9, respectively, based on the mean change method and 5.5 and 10.5, respectively, based on receiver operating characteristic analysis. For the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, we found an MCID and SCB of -8.2 and -19.6, respectively, with the former and -11.7 and -12.5, respectively, with the latter. The responsiveness of both outcome measures was good, with large effect sizes and standardized response means. The radiographic resorption after 6 weeks and after 6 months appeared to be the most important positive predictor for achieving the MCID and SCB after 6 months.

CONCLUSION: This study established the MCID, SCB, and responsiveness for patients with long-lasting rotator cuff calcific tendinitis who were treated with minimally invasive treatment options. With this information, physicians can distinguish between a statistically significant difference and a clinically relevant benefit. Successful radiographic resorption after 6 weeks and after 6 months was associated with achieving clinically significant improvement after treatment.

© 2020 The Authors.

Keywords: Rotator cuff calcific tendinitis; minimal clinically important difference; minimally invasive treatment; outcome measures; prognostic factors; substantial clinical benefit

References

  1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45 - PubMed
  2. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):1577-82 - PubMed
  3. J Hand Ther. 2017 Jan - Mar;30(1):30-40.e2 - PubMed
  4. RMD Open. 2018 Oct 8;4(2):e000685 - PubMed
  5. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(2):103-22 - PubMed
  6. Arthroscopy. 2020 Jul;36(7):1823-1833.e1 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42 - PubMed
  8. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Aug;23(8):1083-90 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 May;56(5):395-407 - PubMed
  10. Disabil Rehabil. 2016 Dec;38(25):2469-78 - PubMed
  11. Qual Life Res. 2018 Sep;27(9):2217-2226 - PubMed
  12. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017 Apr;27(3):381-390 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Feb;61(2):102-9 - PubMed
  14. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Aug;23(8):1240-9 - PubMed
  15. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Jan;19(1):157-64 - PubMed
  16. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Dec;22(12):1650-5 - PubMed
  17. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 May;28(5):939-948 - PubMed
  18. Am J Ind Med. 1996 Jun;29(6):602-8 - PubMed
  19. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1997 Jul;5(4):183-191 - PubMed
  20. Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):539-49 - PubMed
  21. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1062-7 - PubMed
  22. Am J Sports Med. 2017 May;45(6):1297-1303 - PubMed
  23. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15 - PubMed
  24. COPD. 2005 Mar;2(1):63-7 - PubMed
  25. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178-89 - PubMed
  26. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Oct;24(10):1588-93 - PubMed
  27. J Orthop Surg Res. 2013 Nov 14;8:40 - PubMed
  28. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jan;26(1):e1-e12 - PubMed
  29. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4 - PubMed
  30. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Apr;28(4):639-647 - PubMed
  31. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Mar;24(3):376-81 - PubMed
  32. JBJS Rev. 2018 Sep;6(9):e2 - PubMed
  33. BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 20;9(2):e028777 - PubMed
  34. Qual Life Res. 2002 May;11(3):207-21 - PubMed
  35. Med Care. 1990 Jul;28(7):632-42 - PubMed
  36. J Hand Ther. 2002 Oct-Dec;15(4):347-54 - PubMed
  37. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Feb;82:128-136 - PubMed

Publication Types