Validity Of Outcome Instruments Research Articles

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) of upper extremity PROMIS scores in idiopathic adhesive capsulitis.

The purpose of this study is to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients treated nonoperatively for idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (IAC). The anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as the change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. The distribution-based MCID was calculated as a range between the average standard error of measurement multiplied by two different constants: 1 and 2.77. Effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated to assess the responsiveness of each PROMIS instrument while regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with achieving these thresholds. This study enrolled 115 patients. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was 5.11, 4.16, and 8.16, respectively. The respective SCB was 8.44, 6.65, and 10.05. The respective PASS was 8.47, 7.01, and 10.41. The odds of achieving MCID values in adhesive capsulitis were negatively affected by gender (male), higher forward elevation at the time of presentation, higher pain scores (P-Interference), need for ≥ 2 corticosteroid injections, and a concomitant diagnosis of diabetes. The MCID, SCB, and PASS parameters for PROMIS scores can be utilized to determine the clinical meaningfulness of patient-reported improvements in these instruments during the nonoperative treatment and as a research tool to compare the efficacy of new treatments for adhesive capsulitis. Level III, basic science study, validation of outcome instruments. Key points • This is the first study to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity and Pain instruments in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (IAC) of the shoulder.• This study determined the impact of symptom severity, demographics, and comorbidities on achieving the MCID, SCB, and PASS for PROMIS instruments in IAC patients treated nonoperatively.

A new surgical approach for the treatment of scapular glenoid fractures- Axillary approach: A single center case series

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of the scapular glenoid fractures by a new surgical approach (Axillary approach) through follow-up studies. MethodWe retrospectively analyzed the prospectively collected data from 11cases of glenoid fractures were treated by open reduction and internal fixation through a Axillary approach approach between July 2019 and October 2020. All patients were required to conform to regular follow up postoperatively. X-ray film and CT scan was applied to all cases. The Constant score system, the UCLA score system and DASH score system were used to evaluate functional results. ResultsAll patients achieved bone union. At the final follow-up, the mean Constant score was 92.5 ± 3.0 (range 85–97) points and the mean UCLA score was 33.5 ± 1.6 (range 31–36) points. According to the UCLA score system, two patients achieved excellent results and one patients had good results. The mean DASH scores were 7.7 ± 3.2 (range 4–12). Compared with the preoperative functional score, it was significantly improved (P < 0.01). ConclusionsThe axillary approach as a new method for scapular glenoid fractures (especially the fracture of the lower half of the scapular glenoid) has achieved desired results, and it can provide new options for clinical treatment. Level of evidenceLevel III; Development or Validation of Outcome Instrument© 2018 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.

Responsiveness of the Liverpool Elbow Score in elbow arthroplasty

Responsiveness and floor and ceiling effect are important parameters for evaluating the sensitivity of an outcome instrument in detecting the changes in the clinical condition of patients after an intervention as well as evaluating the content validity of the instrument. The aim of this prospective observational study was to assess these parameters for the Liverpool Elbow Score (LES) in total elbow replacement (TER). The study included 121 cemented TER cases with linked elbow prosthesis (Discovery Elbow, Biomet Orthopaedics, Swindon, UK) for various conditions, including inflammatory arthritis, noninflammatory arthritis, trauma, and loosening. The proportion of patients with the lowest score (0 points; floor effect) and maximum score (10 points; ceiling effect) was checked preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Distribution-based methods (effect size [ES], standardized response mean [SRM], Guyatt responsiveness ratio [GRR]) and anchor-based methods (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve and Spearman correlation coefficient) were used to assess responsiveness. Patient satisfaction after TER was used as an external anchor. Patients were a mean age of 63 years (range, 20-86 years). Large ES (1.64), SRM (1.25), and GRR (1.69) were found during the follow-up period. Area under the ROC curve was 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.87; P = .03). There was significant positive correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.35; P = .004) between changes in LES and satisfaction level. LES showed no floor and ceiling effect preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. LES is a responsive measure and has no floor and ceiling effect. This encourages its use as an outcome instrument for TER. Basic Science Study, Development or Validation of Outcome Instruments.

Comparison of the reliability and validity of outcome instruments for cutaneous dermatomyositis

Comparison of the reliability and validity of outcome instruments for cutaneous dermatomyositis