BloomDAKaplanDJMojicaE, et al. The minimal clinically important difference: a review of clinical significance. Am J Sports Med. 2023;51(2):520-524.
2.
ChowAMayerEKDarziAWAthanasiouT. Patient-reported outcome measures: the importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery. 2009;146(3):435-443.
3.
DavisWHDiPasqualeJAPatelRK, et al. Arthroscopic remplissage combined with Bankart repair results in a higher rate of return to sport in athletes compared with Bankart repair alone or the Latarjet procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2023;51(12):3304-3312.
4.
JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407-415.
5.
PaduaRde GirolamoLGrassiACucchiD. Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder pathology. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6(9):779-787.
6.
PasqualiniITanoiraIHurleyETRanallettaMAndres RossiL. Effect of patient characteristics on the minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State thresholds after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Am J Sports Med. 2024;52(1):174-180.
7.
RenDWuTWanC, et al. Exploration of the methods of establishing the minimum clinical important difference based on anchor and its application in the quality of life measurement scale QLICP-ES (V2.0) for esophageal cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):173.
8.
ScanaliatoJPGreenCKSandlerAB, et al. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after arthroscopic posterior labral repair for posterior glenohumeral instability. Am J Sports Med. 2024;52(1):207-214.
9.
SimovitchRWFriedmanRJCheungEV, et al. Rate of improvement in clinical outcomes with anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(21):1801-1811.
