ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Establishing Clinically Significant Improvement for Patients After Arthroscopic Surgery for Shoulder Instability With Large Labral Tears.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Shoulder Instability in the U.S. Military: A Systematic Review of Epidemiology, Operative Management, and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with large labral tears represent a subset of traumatic shoulder instability cases. Outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization in these patients have been studied less compared with other tears. Purpose: To establish minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) thresholds for patients after arthroscopic repair of labral tears ≥270°. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Rowe instability score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 52 arthroscopic large labral repairs (52 patients, mean age 28.7 years) performed in male active-duty military patients with a mean follow-up of 79.2 months (range, 24-117 months) met inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. All included patients completed the Rowe, ASES, SANE, and VAS pain preoperatively and at final follow-up, and the MCID, PASS, and SCB were calculated for each PROM score. Factors associated with achieving clinically relevant improvement were also calculated. Results: The MCID, PASS, and SCB, respectively, for each PROM were as follows: 10.4 points, 90, and 35 points for the Rowe; 9.7 points, 80, and 43 points for the ASES; 9.9 points, 87, and 65 points for the SANE; and 1.1 points, 3, and 6 points for VAS pain. More than 90% of patients improved according to the MCID for each PROM, while >75% achieved the PASS threshold for each score. The percentage of patients who improved according to the SCB ranged from 9.6% for the ASES to 75% for the SANE. Maintenance of active-duty status was associated with achieving the MCID for the ASES and SANE, while recurrent instability was associated with lower rates of Rowe MCID achievement and SANE PASS achievement. Higher preoperative scores were also associated with lower rates of achieving clinical improvement. Conclusion: Thresholds found for the MCID, PASS, and SCB in active-duty patients undergoing surgery for shoulder instability with labral tears ≥270° were similar to those for all-comers with anterior instability. Factors associated with achieving success or lack thereof on PROMs included maintenance of active-duty status and lower preoperative PROM scores.
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.