Changes and thresholds in the Oxford Shoulder Score following shoulder arthroplasty: Minimal clinically important difference, minimal important and detectable changes, and patient-acceptable symptom state.

The minimal clinically important difference, minimal important change, minimal detectable change and patient-acceptable symptom state are poorly defined for the Oxford Shoulder Score following shoulder arthroplasty. The study's aim was to calculate their values. One hundred patients underwent shoulder arthroplasty and completed pre and 1-year postoperative Oxford Shoulder Score. Patient satisfaction was assessed at 1-year using a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100: ‘very satisfied’ (>80), ‘satisfied’ (>60–80), and ‘unsatisfied’ (≤60). The difference between patients recording ‘unsatisfied’ ( n  =  11) and ‘satisfied’ ( n  =  16) was used to define the minimal clinically important difference. MICcohort was calculated as the change in Oxford Shoulder Score for those satisfied (>60). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the MICindividual and patient-acceptable symptom state. Distribution-based methodology was used for the minimal detectable change. The minimal clinically important difference was 6.9 (95% confidence interval 0.7–13.1, p  =  0.039). The MICcohort was 11.6 (95% confidence interval 6.8–16.4) and MICindividual 13. The minimal detectable change was 6.6 and the patient-acceptable symptom state was defined as ≥29. The minimal clinically important difference and minimal important change can assess whether there is a clinical difference between two groups and whether a cohort/patient has had a meaningful change in their Oxford Shoulder Score, respectively. These were greater than measurement error (minimal detectable change), suggesting a real change. The patient-acceptable symptom state can be used as a marker of achieving satisfaction.

[1]  Joshua D. Harris,et al.  Guidelines for Proper Reporting of Clinical Significance, Including Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Maximal Outcome Improvement. , 2022, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[2]  D. Cucchi,et al.  Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder pathology , 2021, EFORT open reviews.

[3]  C. Terwee,et al.  Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures , 2021, Quality of Life Research.

[4]  L. G. Oestergaard,et al.  Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Oxford Shoulder Score, EQ-5D, and the Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire Physical Activity subscale in patients undergoing arthroscopic subacromial decompression , 2021, JSES international.

[5]  Conor P. Lynch,et al.  Achievement of a Minimum Clinically Important Difference for Back Disability is a Suitable Predictor of Patient Satisfaction Among Lumbar Fusion Patients. , 2021, World neurosurgery.

[6]  L. Audigé,et al.  Validity, responsiveness and minimal important change of the EQ-5D-5L in patients after rotator cuff repair, shoulder arthroplasty or thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty , 2021, Quality of Life Research.

[7]  Wei Sun,et al.  How much improvement can satisfy patients? Exploring patients’ satisfaction 3 years after total knee arthroplasty , 2021, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.

[8]  B. Terluin,et al.  Which Oxford Knee Score level represents a satisfactory symptom state after undergoing a total knee replacement? , 2020, Acta orthopaedica.

[9]  N. Verma,et al.  Patient Satisfaction After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. , 2020, Orthopedics.

[10]  N. Verma,et al.  Cost Effective Analyses in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Critical Review Utilizing the QHES. , 2020, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[11]  D. Kader,et al.  There is no clinically important difference in the Oxford knee scores between one and two years after total knee arthroplasty: The one-year score could be used as the benchmark timepoint to assess outcome. , 2020, The Knee.

[12]  Yosra Mouelhi,et al.  How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods , 2020, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[13]  P. Meshram,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty: review of terminologies, methods and proposed values , 2020, Knee Surgery & Related Research.

[14]  C. Vangsness,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported shoulder outcomes. , 2020, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[15]  E. Wagner,et al.  The Incidence of Shoulder Arthroplasty: Rise and Future Projections Compared to Hip and Knee Arthroplasty , 2019 .

[16]  T. Pop,et al.  Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the polish version of the Oxford Shoulder Score in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair , 2019, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[17]  S. Hasson,et al.  Simple shoulder test and Oxford Shoulder Score: Persian translation and cross-cultural validation , 2015, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[18]  D. Falla,et al.  Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Change: A Comparison Between 2 Shoulder Outcome Measures. , 2015, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[19]  R. Lewis,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. , 2014, JAMA.

[20]  Hanna C. Björnsson Hallgren,et al.  Minimal important changes in the Constant-Murley score in patients with subacromial pain. , 2014, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[21]  A. van Kampen,et al.  The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty , 2012, European orthopaedics and traumatology.

[22]  Christy Chuang-Stein,et al.  The role of the minimum clinically important difference and its impact on designing a trial , 2011, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[23]  J. Brox,et al.  Agreement, reliability and validity in 3 shoulder questionnaires in patients with rotator cuff disease , 2008, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[24]  T. Kvien,et al.  Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? , 2007, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[25]  A. Copay,et al.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. , 2007, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[26]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Quality of life measures in health care. I: Applications and issues in assessment. , 1992, BMJ.

[27]  A. Garratt,et al.  Identification of shoulder-specific patient acceptable symptom state in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing shoulder surgery. , 2011, Journal of Hand Therapy.

[28]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  Ray Fitzpatrick,et al.  The Oxford shoulder score revisited , 2007, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.