Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33676417›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2021

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

Kari Kanto, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Mika Paavola, Pasi Aronen, Teppo L N Järvinen, Jarkko Jokihaara, Clare L Ardern, Teemu V Karjalainen, Simo Taimela

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT00428870 naunknown statusnot on this map

Arthroscopic Decompression Versus Diagnostic Arthroscopy Without Subacromial Decompression Versus Supervised Exercise Therapy in Treatment of Subacromial Impingement Syndrome. A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trail.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of HelsinkiRan2005 to 2024Enrolled210ConditionsSubacromial Impingement SyndromeArmsArthroscopic acromioplasty or arthroscopy alone (sham) or conservative treatment (rehabilitation)
NCT05391464 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Preoperative Versus Postoperative Peripheral Nerve Block for Pain Control After Ankle and Wrist Fracture Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaineGeneral HealthRan2022 to 2025Enrolled160ConditionsAnkle Fractures, Distal Radius FractureArmsPeripheral Nerve Block
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

9 authors.

Kari Kanto *Finnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, TAYS Hatanpää, Hatanpäänkatu 24, 33900, Tampere, Finland.
Tuomas Lähdeoja *Finnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, HUS, 00029, Helsinki, Finland.
Mika PaavolaFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, HUS, 00029, Helsinki, Finland.
Pasi AronenBiostatistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine at University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Tukholmankatu 8B, 00290, Helsinki, Finland.
Teppo L N JärvinenFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, HUS, 00029, Helsinki, Finland.
Jarkko JokihaaraFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Hand and Microsurgery, Tampere University Hospital, Elämänaukio 2, 33520, Tampere, Finland.
Clare L ArdernFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Division of Physiotherapy, Karolinska Institute, H1 Fysioterapi, 17177, Stockholm, Sweden.
Teemu V KarjalainenFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Central Finland Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Keskussairaalantie 19, 40620, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Simo TaimelaFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, HUS, 00029, Helsinki, Finland. simo.taimela@helsinki.fi.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe results of clinical trials should be assessed for both statistical significance and importance of observed effects to patients. Minimal important difference (MID) is a threshold denoting a difference that is important to patients. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a threshold above which patients feel well.

objectiveTo determine MID and PASS for common outcome instruments in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS).

methodsWe used data from the FIMPACT trial, a randomised controlled trial of treatment for SAPS that included 193 patients. The outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity, both measured with the 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), the Constant-Murley score (CS), and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). The transition question was a five-point global rating of change. We used three anchor-based methods to determine the MID for improvement: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change and the mean change methods. For the PASS, we used the ROC and 75th percentile methods and calculated estimates using two different anchor question thresholds.

resultsDifferent MID methods yielded different estimates. The ROC method yielded the smallest estimates for MID: 20 mm for shoulder pain on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST, with good to excellent discrimination (areas under curve (AUCs) from 0.86 to 0.94). We could not establish a reliable MID for pain at rest. The PASS estimates were consistent between methods. The ROC method PASS thresholds using a conservative anchor question threshold were 2 mm for pain at rest, 9 mm for pain on activity, 80 points for CS and 11 points for SST, with AUCs from 0.74 to 0.83.

conclusionWe recommend the smallest estimate from different methods as the MID, because it is very unlikely that changes smaller than the smallest MID estimate are important to patients: 20 mm for pain VAS on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST. We recommend PASS estimates of 9 mm for pain on arm activity, 80 points for CS, and 11 points for SST.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00428870 (first registered January 29, 2007).

Indexed as

PainShoulderHumansPain MeasurementTreatment OutcomeClinimetrics, minimal important change, MID, MCID, patient accepted symptom state, PASS, responsivenessConstant-Murley scoreOutcome measuresPainSimple shoulder testSubacromial painVisual analogue scale (VAS)

Identifiers

PMID33676417
PMCPMC7937213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.