Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36357855›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2022

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for common outcome instruments in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture - analysis of the FISH randomised clinical trial data.

Thomas Ibounig, Joona Juurakko, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Bakir O Sumrein, Teppo L N Järvinen, Mika Paavola, Clare L Ardern, Teemu Karjalainen, Simo Taimela, Lasse Rämö

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01719887 (Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures. Randomized Controlled Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT01719887 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures. Randomized Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorTöölö HospitalRan2012 to 2028Enrolled82ConditionsFractureArmsConservative treatment, Operative treatment, Physiotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Selecting the optimal MIC for five patient-reported outcome measures in patients with upper extremity injuries, using a systematic search and step-by-step decision tree.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. The effect of plate location on radial nerve palsy recovery time associated with humeral shaft fractures.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Thomas IbounigFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, PL266, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Joona JuurakkoFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Hand Surgery, Central Finland Central Hospital, Keskussairaalantie 19, 40620, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Tuomas LähdeojaFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, PL266, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Bakir O SumreinDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Tampere and Tampere University Hospital, Elämänaukio 2, 33520, Tampere, 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, PL266, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Mika PaavolaFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, PL266, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Clare L ArdernFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, PL266, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Teemu KarjalainenFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Hand Surgery, Central Finland Central Hospital, 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, PL266, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Lasse RämöFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, PL266, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland. lasse.ramo@hus.fi.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo common ways of assessing the clinical relevance of treatment outcomes are the minimal important difference (MID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). The former represents the smallest change in the given outcome that makes people feel better, while the latter is the symptom level at which patients feel well.

methodsWe recruited 124 patients with a humeral shaft fracture to a randomised controlled trial comparing surgery to nonsurgical care. Outcome instruments included the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, the Constant-Murley score, and two numerical rating scales (NRS) for pain (at rest and on activities). A reduction in DASH and pain scores, and increase in the Constant-Murley score represents improvement. We used four methods (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve, the mean difference of change, the mean change, and predictive modelling methods) to determine the MID, and two methods (the ROC and 75th percentile) for the PASS. As an anchor for the analyses, we assessed patients' satisfaction regarding the injured arm using a 7-item Likert-scale.

resultsThe change in the anchor question was strongly correlated with the change in DASH, moderately correlated with the change of the Constant-Murley score and pain on activities, and poorly correlated with the change in pain at rest (Spearman's rho 0.51, -0.40, 0.36, and 0.15, respectively). Depending on the method, the MID estimates for DASH ranged from -6.7 to -11.2, pain on activities from -0.5 to -1.3, and the Constant-Murley score from 6.3 to 13.5. The ROC method provided reliable estimates for DASH (-6.7 points, Area Under Curve [AUC] 0.77), the Constant-Murley Score (7.6 points, AUC 0.71), and pain on activities (-0.5 points, AUC 0.68). The PASS estimates were 14 and 10 for DASH, 2.5 and 2 for pain on activities, and 68 and 74 for the Constant-Murley score with the ROC and 75th percentile methods, respectively.

conclusionOur study provides credible estimates for the MID and PASS values of DASH, pain on activities and the Constant-Murley score, but not for pain at rest. The suggested cut-offs can be used in future studies and for assessing treatment success in patients with humeral shaft fracture.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01719887, first registration 01/11/2012.

Indexed as

Humeral FracturesHumansHumerusPainTreatment OutcomeClinimetricsConstant-Murley scoreDASHHumeral shaft fractureMCIDMIDMinimal important differenceOutcome measuresPainPASSPatient accepted symptom stateResponsiveness

Identifiers

PMID36357855
PMCPMC9650807

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.