Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-10
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.
Methods
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.
Results
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.
Discussion
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.
CregarWMBeletskyACvetanovichGL, et al.Cost-effectiveness analyses in shoulder arthroplasty: a critical review using the quality of health economic studies (QHES) instrument. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2021; 30: 1007–1017.
2.
FarleyKXWilsonJMDalyCA, et al.The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty: rise and future projections compared to hip and knee arthroplasty. JSES Open Access2019; 3: 44.
3.
FitzpatrickRFletcherAGoreS, et al.Quality of life measures in health care. I: Applications and issues in assessment. BMJ1992; 305: 1074–1077.
4.
DawsonJFitzpatrickRCarrA.Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78: 593–600.
FrichLHNoergaardPMBrorsonS.Validation of the Danish version of Oxford shoulder score. Dan Med Bull2011; 58: A4335.
7.
PaduaRde GirolamoLGrassiA, et al.Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder pathology. EFORT Open Rev2021; 6: 779–787.
8.
CookCE.Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther2008; 16: E82–E83.
9.
CopayAGSubachBRGlassmanSD, et al.Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J2007; 7: 541–546.
10.
McGlothlinAELewisRJ.Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA2014; 312: 1342–1343.
11.
TerweeCBPeipertJDChapmanR, et al.Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures. Qual Life Res2021; 30: 2729–2754.
12.
KvienTKHeibergTHagenKB.Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean?Ann Rheum Dis2007; 66: iii40–iii41.
13.
NyringMRKOlsenBSAmundsenA, et al.Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for the western Ontario osteoarthritis of the shoulder index (WOOS) and the Oxford shoulder score (OSS). Patient Relat Outcome Meas2021; 12: 299–306.
14.
MurrayDWFitzpatrickRRogersK, et al.The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br2007; 89: 1010–1014.
15.
MouelhiYJouveECastelliC, et al.How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods. Health Qual Life Outcomes2020; 18: 36.
16.
WrightAHannonJHegedusEJ, et al.Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther2012; 20: 160–166.
17.
JonesIATogashiRHeckmannN, et al.Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported shoulder outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: 1484–1492.
18.
AngstFSchwyzerHKAeschlimannA, et al.Measures of adult shoulder function: disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), American shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) society standardized shoulder. Arthritis Care Res2011; 63: S174–S188.
19.
HolmgrenTÖbergBAdolfssonL, et al.Minimal important changes in the constant-murley score in patients with subacromial pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2014; 23: 1083–1090.
20.
MaredupakaSMeshramPChatteM, et al.Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty: review of terminologies, methods and proposed values. Knee Surg Relat Res2020; 32: 19.
21.
FlurinPHMarczukYJanoutM, et al.Comparison of outcomes using anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis2013; 71 : 101–107.
22.
GeogheganCEMohanSChaEDK, et al.Achievement of a minimum clinically important difference for back disability is a suitable predictor of patient satisfaction among lumbar fusion patients. World Neurosurg2021; 152: e94–e100.
23.
TurnerDSchünemannHJGriffithLE, et al.The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol2010; 63: 28–36.
24.
FanXYMaJHWuX, et al.How much improvement can satisfy patients? Exploring patients’ satisfaction 3 years after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg2021; 16: 89.
25.
SunZLiJLuoG, et al.What constitutes a clinically important change in mayo elbow performance index and range of movement after open elbow arthrolysis?Bone Jt J. 2021;103-B:366–372.
26.
BrokelmanRBGHaverkampDvan LoonC, et al.The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. Eur Orthop Traumatol2012; 3: 101–105.
27.
SørensenLvan TulderMJohannsenHV, 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. JSES Int2021; 5: 869–874.
28.
EkebergOMBautz-HolterETveitåEK, et al.Agreement, reliability and validity in 3 shoulder questionnaires in patients with rotator cuff disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2008; 9: 68.
29.
ChristiansenDHFrostPFallaD, et al.Responsiveness and minimal clinically important change: a comparison between 2 shoulder outcome measures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2015; 45: 620–625.
30.
Chuang-SteinCKirbySHirschI, et al.The role of the minimum clinically important difference and its impact on designing a trial. Pharm Stat2011; 10: 250–256.
31.
van KampenDAWillemsWvan BeersLWAH, et al.Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg2013; 8: 40.
32.
BejerASzczepanikMPłockiJ, et al.Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Oxford shoulder score in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Health Qual Life Outcomes2019; 17: 91.
33.
GonçalvesRSCaldeiraCQRodriguesMV, et al.Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Portuguese version of the Oxford shoulder score (OSS). Acta Reumatol Port2018; 43: 102–108.
34.
NaghdiSNakhostin AnsariNRustaieN, et al.Simple shoulder test and Oxford shoulder score: Persian translation and cross-cultural validation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2015; 135: 1707–1718.
35.
HarrisJDBrandJCCoteM, 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. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg2023; 39: 145–150.
36.
ChristieADagfinrudHGarrattAM,et al.Identification of shoulder-specific patient acceptable symptom state in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing shoulder surgery. J Hand Ther2011; 24: 53–61.
37.
MarksMGrobetCAudigéL.Validity, responsiveness and minimal important change of the EQ-5D-5L in patients after rotator cuff repair, shoulder arthroplasty or thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty. Qual Life Res2021; 30: 2973–2982.
38.
PuzzitielloRNNwachukwuBUAgarwallaA, et al.Patient satisfaction after total shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopedics2020; 43: e492–e497.
39.
CarreonLYBratcherKRCananCE, et al.Differentiating minimum clinically important difference for primary and revision lumbar fusion surgeries: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine2013; 18: 102–106.
40.
ClementNDAfzalIDemetriouC, 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. Knee2020; 27: 1212–1218.
41.
SinghHPHaqueATaubN, et al.Floor and ceiling effects in the Oxford shoulder score : An analysis from the national joint registry. Bone Jt J2021; 103-B: 1717–1724.
42.
IngelsrudLHTerluinBGromovK, et al.Which Oxford knee score level represents a satisfactory symptom state after undergoing a total knee replacement?Acta Orthop2021; 92: 85–90.
