Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33433840›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2021

Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review.

Favian Su, Sachin Allahabadi, Dale N Bongbong, Brian T Feeley, Drew A Lansdown

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Favian SuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1170-0665
Sachin AllahabadiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1185-3039
Dale N BongbongSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Brian T FeeleyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4215-9664
Drew A LansdownDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Drew.Lansdown@ucsf.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8086-6776
University of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of the reviewTo provide a comprehensive summary of available literature on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for various shoulder conditions and outcomes and to identify factors that influence these metrics. RECENT

findingsOver the past 2 years, there has been an increasing interest in utilizing MCID, SCB, and PASS as a gauge to evaluate the success of an intervention for shoulder conditions. Efforts at calculating these thresholds have yielded multiple and inconsistent values and are further compounded by the proliferation of different PROMs in the shoulder literature. The MCID, SCB, and PASS values of shoulder PROMs vary widely with study-specific characteristics, including patient demographics, shoulder pathology, treatment, shoulder instrument, study methodology, and calculation method. The differences in these factors are not inconsequential and could lead to large discrepancies in threshold values. It is crucial that clinicians are mindful of these variables when designing future studies to calculate these metrics or when utilizing previously published values to determine the success of an intervention.

Indexed as

Minimal clinical important differenceOutcomesPatient acceptable symptom stateShoulderSubstantial clinical benefit

Identifiers

PMID33433840
PMCPMC7930136
OpenAlexW3119163853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.