ArticleJSES international2025
Defining clinical significance following primary stabilization of posterior shoulder instability.
Article in JSES international, 2025. 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.
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: Posterior glenohumeral instability is a common cause of shoulder pain and significant disability. Current literature about clinical significance thresholds for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following posterior stabilization have been poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Brophy shoulder score, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-10) physical health (PH) and mental health (MH) scores, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and visual analog pain scale (VAS) for patients undergoing arthroscopic stabilization for posterior instability. Methods: This was a retrospective review of shoulder PROMs in patients who underwent arthroscopic posterior stabilization between 2013 and 2023. The MCID, PASS, and SCB were calculated for the ASES, Brophy, PROMIS-10, SSV, and VAS utilizing either anchor- or distribution-based methods. For MCID, a distribution-based method used both the Standard Error of Measurement and the 95% Minimum Detectable Change. For PASS and SCB, anchor-based methods were used based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to identify optimal cutoffs using the Youden J statistic. Results: Ninety-eight patients were included. The most common etiologies of posterior shoulder instability were chronic posterior instability (60.2%), followed by sport related injury (37.4%), and trauma (13.3%). The MCID values for Standard Error of Measurement and Minimum Detectable Change methods were 7.31 and 20.26 for ASES, 0.90 and 2.50 for Brophy, 9.54 and 26.45 for SSV, 0.43 and 1.19 for VAS, 1.06 and 2.93 for PROMIS-10 MH, and 0.67 and 1.85 for PROMIS-10 PH, respectively. The PASS values for ROC methods were 91.75 for ASES, 10.5 for Brophy, 67.5 for SSV, 1.5 for VAS, 18.5 for PROMIS-10 MH, and 14.5 for PROMIS-10 PH, respectively. Finally, the SCB values for ROC methods were 85.76 for ASES, 9.5 for Brophy, 92.25 for SSV, 2.5 for VAS, 14.5 for PROMIS-10 MH, and 14.5 for PROMIS-10 PH, respectively. Conclusion: MCID, PASS, and SCB provide clinical context to PROMs, allowing a more accurate assessment of patient outcomes. The thresholds defined in this study can provide a guideline for interpreting patient outcomes following arthroscopic stabilization for posterior shoulder instability, allowing for earlier detection of recurrent posterior instability.
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.