Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) for the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS).

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Patient Related Outcome Measures Pub Date : 2021-09-22 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PROM.S316920
Marc Randall Kristensen Nyring, Bo Sanderhoff Olsen, Alexander Amundsen, Jeppe Vejlgaard Rasmussen
{"title":"Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) for the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS).","authors":"Marc Randall Kristensen Nyring,&nbsp;Bo Sanderhoff Olsen,&nbsp;Alexander Amundsen,&nbsp;Jeppe Vejlgaard Rasmussen","doi":"10.2147/PROM.S316920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an important instrument in the interpretation of changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). To our knowledge, no MCID of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) score has ever been reported and no studies have reported an MCID for the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) based on patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, treated with an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The aim of this study was to determine MCID for WOOS and OSS in a cohort of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients treated with an aTSA for glenohumeral osteoarthritis at our institution between March 2017 and February 2019 were included. Each patient completed the WOOS and the OSS preoperatively and one year postoperatively. At one year, the patients were asked to rate their overall improvement on a 7-point scale. We used an anchor-based method as our primary method to calculate the MCID, supported by two different distribution-based methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 45 primary aTSA were included. The MCID of WOOS was 12.3 according to the anchor-based method and 14.2 and 10.3 according to the two distribution-based methods. The MCID of OSS was 4.3 according to the anchor-based method and 5.8 and 4.3 according to the two distribution-based methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The anchor-based method is considered superior to the distribution-based method, and therefore we advocate to use this as MCID. For patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA, the MCID values were 12.3 points for WOOS and 4.3 points for OSS. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report a MCID value for WOOS and the first study to report a MCID value for OSS in this subgroup of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19747,"journal":{"name":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/87/19/prom-12-299.PMC8473013.pdf","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S316920","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Background: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an important instrument in the interpretation of changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). To our knowledge, no MCID of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) score has ever been reported and no studies have reported an MCID for the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) based on patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, treated with an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The aim of this study was to determine MCID for WOOS and OSS in a cohort of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA.

Methods: All patients treated with an aTSA for glenohumeral osteoarthritis at our institution between March 2017 and February 2019 were included. Each patient completed the WOOS and the OSS preoperatively and one year postoperatively. At one year, the patients were asked to rate their overall improvement on a 7-point scale. We used an anchor-based method as our primary method to calculate the MCID, supported by two different distribution-based methods.

Results: A total of 45 primary aTSA were included. The MCID of WOOS was 12.3 according to the anchor-based method and 14.2 and 10.3 according to the two distribution-based methods. The MCID of OSS was 4.3 according to the anchor-based method and 5.8 and 4.3 according to the two distribution-based methods.

Conclusion: The anchor-based method is considered superior to the distribution-based method, and therefore we advocate to use this as MCID. For patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA, the MCID values were 12.3 points for WOOS and 4.3 points for OSS. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report a MCID value for WOOS and the first study to report a MCID value for OSS in this subgroup of patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
西安大略骨关节炎肩关节指数(WOOS)和牛津肩关节评分(OSS)的最小临床重要差异(MCID)。
背景:最小临床重要差异(MCID)是解释患者报告的结果测量(PROM)变化的重要工具。据我们所知,目前还没有Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS)评分的MCID报道,也没有研究报道基于肩关节骨性关节炎患者解剖性全肩关节置换术(aTSA)治疗的牛津肩关节评分(OSS)的MCID。本研究的目的是确定一组接受aTSA治疗的肩关节骨性关节炎患者中wos和OSS的MCID。方法:纳入2017年3月至2019年2月在我院接受aTSA治疗盂肱骨关节炎的所有患者。每位患者术前和术后1年完成了wos和OSS。一年后,患者被要求以7分制对他们的整体改善进行评分。我们使用基于锚点的方法作为计算MCID的主要方法,并辅以两种不同的基于分布的方法。结果:共纳入45例原发性aTSA。基于锚点的方法WOOS的MCID分别为12.3,基于分布的方法分别为14.2和10.3。基于锚点法的MCID为4.3,基于分布法的MCID为5.8和4.3。结论:锚定法优于分布法,建议采用锚定法作为MCID。对于接受aTSA治疗的盂肱骨关节炎患者,wos的MCID值为12.3分,OSS为4.3分。据我们所知,这是第一个报告wos的MCID值的研究,也是第一个报告该亚组患者OSS的MCID值的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Patient Related Outcome Measures
Patient Related Outcome Measures HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
4.80%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Development and Content Validation of the Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment - Real-World (PQAT-RW): An Instrument to Evaluate Benefits and Disadvantages of Treatments in Real-World Settings. Exploring Barriers to Effective COVID-19 Risk Mitigation, Recovery, and Chronic Disease Self-Management: A Qualitative Multilevel Perspective. Ultra-Low Frequency Transmitted Ultrasound Breast Imaging vs DBT (Digital Breast Tomosynthesis): A Patient-Reported Outcome Study. Systematic Literature Review of Studies Reporting Measures of Functional Outcome or Quality of Life in People with Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia. Validation and Cultural Adaptation of the Sinhala Translation of the Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1