Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30787096›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a

Qiukui Hao, Tahira Devji, Dena Zeraatkar, Yuting Wang, Anila Qasim, Reed A C Siemieniuk, Per Olav Vandvik, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Thomas Agoritsas and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Kinesio taping for rotator cuff disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Primary arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears results in significant improvements with low rate of re-tear.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Surgery for rotator cuff tears.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. A randomized controlled trial of scapular exercises with electromyography biofeedback in oral cancer patients with accessory nerve dysfunction.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Trial
  18. Randomized controlled trial of suprascapular nerve blocks for subacute adhesive capsulitis.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2022
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Qiukui HaoThe Center of Gerontology and Geriatrics/ National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5160-5144
Tahira DevjiHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Dena ZeraatkarHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Yuting WangThe Center of Gerontology and Geriatrics/ National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Anila QasimHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Reed A C SiemieniukHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Per Olav VandvikDepartment of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust-division, Gjøvik, Norway.
Tuomas LähdeojaFinnish Center of Evidence Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9053-8888
Alonso Carrasco-LabraHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Thomas AgoritsasHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6182-9969
Gordon GuyattHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to a

designSystematic review. OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for PROMs judged by the parallel DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to August 2018. STUDY SELECTION AND REVIEW

methodsWe included original studies of any intervention for shoulder conditions reporting estimates of anchor-based MIDs for relevant PROMs. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria. Six reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data from eligible studies using a predesigned, standardised, pilot-tested extraction form and independently assessed the credibility of included studies using an MID credibility tool.

resultsWe identified 22 studies involving 5562 patients that reported 74 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 10 candidate instruments to assess shoulder pain, function and HRQoL. We identified MIDs of high credibility for pain and function outcomes and of low credibility for HRQoL. We offered median estimates for the systematic review team who applied these MIDs in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence summaries and in their interpretations of results in the linked systematic review addressing the effectiveness of surgery for shoulder pain.

conclusionsOur review provides anchor-based MID estimates, as well as a rating of their credibility, for PROMs for patients with shoulder conditions. The MID estimates inform the interpretation for a linked systematic review and guideline addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain, and could also prove useful for authors addressing other interventions for shoulder problems. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018106531.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeDecompression, SurgicalHumansPain ManagementPain MeasurementPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicShoulder Painminimal important differencespatient-reported outcome measuresshoulder condition

Identifiers

PMID30787096
PMCPMC6398656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.