ArticlePatient related outcome measures2021
Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) for the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS).
Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Manual therapy and exercise for adhesive capsulitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2023Pooled it
- Rate and timing of return to sport following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an active Australian cohort.JSES international · 2026Article
- ORIF of three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures: a retrospective study of long-term clinical and complication outcomes of two-plate fixation methods.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026Article
- Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute Neer type III and IV proximal humeral head fractures with different humeral stem inclination versus nonsurgical treatment: a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.JSES international · 2026Article
- Factors associated with shoulder function following ultrasound-guided hydrodilatation in patients with frozen shoulder: a prospective observational study.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
- Outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a day case procedure: a population-based cohort study using the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Do uncemented humeral components perform better than cemented humeral components in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fracture? A New Zealand Joint Registry study.JSES international · 2026Article
- Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis in patients who are 75 years or older. An analysis of revision rates and patient-reported outcome using data from the Danish shoulder arthroplasty registry.JSES international · 2026Article
- Article
- Survivorship, complications, and outcomes of custom glenoid implants in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
- Article
- Short to mid-term functional outcomes of stemless anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty in patients over 70 years of age.Shoulder & elbow · 2025Article
- The variability of minimum clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty literature: a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
- Obesity has no significant association with revision rate and functional outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty-results from the New Zealand National Joint Registry.JSES international · 2025Article
- Association between socioeconomic status and patient-reported outcome at 1 year after shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis or cuff-tear arthropathy: a nationwide cohort study of 2,292 arthroplasties.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Back and shoulder function after delayed breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap: a disputed topic.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- 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.Shoulder & elbow · 2024Article
- Survivorship analysis of CAD-CAM total shoulder replacement.Shoulder & elbow · 2024Article
- Two-year follow-up of the SMR stemless platform shoulder system: a multicenter, prospective clinical study.JSES international · 2024Article
- Physiotherapy treatment for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Results of a patient-centred rehabilitation guideline using functional and patient-reported outcome measures.Shoulder & elbow · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an important instrument in the interpretation of changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). To our knowledge, no MCID of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) score has ever been reported and no studies have reported an MCID for the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) based on patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, treated with an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The aim of this study was to determine MCID for WOOS and OSS in a cohort of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA.
methodsAll patients treated with an aTSA for glenohumeral osteoarthritis at our institution between March 2017 and February 2019 were included. Each patient completed the WOOS and the OSS preoperatively and one year postoperatively. At one year, the patients were asked to rate their overall improvement on a 7-point scale. We used an anchor-based method as our primary method to calculate the MCID, supported by two different distribution-based methods.
resultsA total of 45 primary aTSA were included. The MCID of WOOS was 12.3 according to the anchor-based method and 14.2 and 10.3 according to the two distribution-based methods. The MCID of OSS was 4.3 according to the anchor-based method and 5.8 and 4.3 according to the two distribution-based methods.
conclusionThe anchor-based method is considered superior to the distribution-based method, and therefore we advocate to use this as MCID. For patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA, the MCID values were 12.3 points for WOOS and 4.3 points for OSS. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report a MCID value for WOOS and the first study to report a MCID value for OSS in this subgroup of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.