Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36820412›Full record

ArticleJSES international2023

Substantial clinical benefit values demonstrate a high degree of variability when stratified by time and geographic region.

Ian J Wellington, Annabelle P Davey, Mark P Cote, Benjamin C Hawthorne, Caitlin G Dorsey, Patrick M Garvin, James C Messina, Cory R Hewitt, Augustus D Mazzocca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JSES international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Ian J WellingtonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Annabelle P DaveyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Mark P CoteMassachusetts General Brigham Sports Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Benjamin C HawthorneDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Caitlin G DorseyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Patrick M GarvinDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
James C MessinaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Cory R HewittDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Augustus D MazzoccaMassachusetts General Brigham Sports Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) value is the amount of change in a patient-reported outcome measure required for a patient to feel they significantly improved from an intervention. Previously published SCB values are often cited by researchers when publishing outcomes data. Where these SCB values are set can have a large impact on the conclusions drawn from a study citing them. As such, the goal of this study was to determine the generalizability of SCB values for a procedure when stratified by time from surgery and geographic region. Methods: A nationwide outcomes database was utilized to obtain preoperative, one-year, and two-year postoperative outcome measurements for patients who underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse TSA. The data were divided into three geographic regions: the South, the Midwest, and the West. An East region was not included due to its limited number of patients. SCB values were calculated for four outcomes measures: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons score, Visual Analog Scale, and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder score. SCB values were calculated for each region, for each procedure, and at both one and two years postoperatively. To determine the variability of potential SCBs within each region, simulated datasets were created to determine a distribution of possible calculated SCBs. Results: A total of 380 anatomic TSA patients and 543 reverse TSA patients were included for analysis. There was a high degree of variability of SCB values when stratified by procedure, time, and region. While some simulated datasets did produce homogenous SCB distributions among regions, some outcome measures demonstrated a large heterogeneity in distribution among regions, with concomitant large distributions of values within individual regions. Conclusions: There is notable heterogeneity of SCB values when stratified by region or time. The current method of citing previously published SCB values for determining the efficacy of an intervention may be inappropriate. It is likely that this variability holds true in other areas of orthopedics.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyMethodologyOutcomesReverseShoulderStatisticsSubstantial clinical benefit

Identifiers

PMID36820412
PMCPMC9937830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.