ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow surgery2026
Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for rotator cuff repair surgery.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2026. 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.
- Comparative responsiveness of shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to rotator cuff repair surgery and healing.Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRotator cuff disease affects over 50% of individuals over age 70, with more than 250,000 rotator cuff repair (RCR) surgeries performed annually in the U.S. Despite its benefits, 20%-30% of repairs fail, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used to assess recovery, though none are fully validated for RCR-specific use.
objectiveThis study evaluates the psychometric properties of the PENN Shoulder Score (PSS), modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) in RCR patients to determine their validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using the Cleveland Clinic's Outcomes Measurement and Evaluation database, including 4,909 patients who underwent primary arthroscopic RCR for superior-posterior tears between 2015 and 2024. A subset of 112 patients participated in an NIH R01 study, enabling test-retest reliability analysis. Measurement properties were assessed per COSMIN guidelines, including internal consistency (McDonald's ω ≥ 0.70), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC ≥ 0.70), known-groups and convergent validity, structural validity, responsiveness, and interpretability (Patient Acceptable Symptom State, minimal clinically important difference, minimum detectable change).
resultsASES score and PSS demonstrated high internal consistency (ω = 0.86-0.97). Test-retest reliability was strong, except for PSS-Satisfaction (ICC = 0.34-0.42), SANE at baseline (ICC = 0.38), and ASES-Pain at 1 year (ICC = 0.28). Known-groups validity confirmed that larger tears were associated with worse pain and function scores preoperatively. Convergent validity showed strong correlations between ASES and PSS scores (r = 0.83-0.98), while SANE had weaker correlations at baseline (r = 0.46-0.56). Structural validity analyses indicated acceptable model fit for ASES and PSS function items. Responsiveness was excellent across all PROMs (standardized response means= 1.34-2.05). PSS outperformed other PROMs, meeting all validation criteria at baseline and 75% at 1 year.
conclusionThis study provides a comprehensive psychometric evaluation of three widely used shoulder PROMs in RCR patients. While ASES and PSS were valid, reliable, and responsive, SANE's single-item format limited its effectiveness. The PSS demonstrated superior measurement properties, making it the most robust PROM for assessing RCR outcomes. These findings guide PROM selection for clinical and research applications, though unexamined factors such as patient response burden should also be considered.
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.