Basic ScienceMinimal important changes in the Constant-Murley score in patients with subacromial pain
Section snippets
Study population
The study population included patients in a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of a specific exercise strategy on long-standing subacromial pain.13 The inclusion criteria were as follows: age between 30 and 65 years, diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome, and on the waiting list for arthroscopic subacromial decompression. An orthopedic surgeon set the following criteria for surgery: a positive Neer impingement test result (injection of 1 mL of 20 mg/mL triamcinolone mixed
Results
Our analysis was based on 93 patients because 2 of the 97 patients included in the original RCT study13 lacked complete CM score change or PGIC data. Another 2 patients were excluded because of deterioration in the PGIC; this exclusion is in line with earlier studies.17, 18 Background data for the patients included in the analysis are presented in Table I. The mean changes in the CM score for each PGIC category are presented in Table II. Spearman ρ between the changes in the CM scores and the
Discussion
The CM score is often used in research and clinical practice to evaluate the effect of interventions for shoulder disorders. Therefore, it is important to identify the smallest change in the CM score that patients and clinicians should consider a clinically important change.
This study presents 2 MIC values for the CM score: the MICROC and the MIC95% limit cutoff points. In the current study, these values were quite different, with the MICROC at 17 points and the MIC95% limit at 24 points. The
Conclusion
Here we presented MIC values for the CM score for patients with long-standing subacromial pain. To our knowledge, this is the first time that MIC values in the CM score for patients conservatively treated with subacromial pain have been presented. The CM score is able to detect the MIC in individual patients with subacromial pain when the rotator cuff is intact. In all patients with subacromial pain, the MIC value was dependent on the subgroup being studied as well as on the choice of
Acknowledgment
We acknowledge the support and contribution of the Physiotherapy Orthopaedic Department of the University Hospital in Linköping, Sweden. We would also like to thank Henrik Magnusson for all statistical assistance.
Disclaimer
The authors, their immediate families, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.
References (23)
- et al.
A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
(2008) - et al.
Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods
Spine J
(2007) - et al.
Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life
J Clin Epidemiol
(2003) - et al.
Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures
Mayo Clin Proc
(2002) - et al.
Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status
J Clin Epidemiol
(2010) - et al.
Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
(2013) - et al.
Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
(2009) - et al.
Evaluation of intratester and intertester reliability of the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
(2008) - et al.
A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Constant-Murley score
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
(2010) - et al.
Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
(2009)
Outcome analysis of surgery for disorders of the rotator cuff: a comparison of subjective and objective scoring tools
J Bone Joint Surg Br
Cited by (52)
Arthroscopic Superior Capsular Reconstruction With Tensor Fascia Lata Allograft for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes for a Minimum 1-Year Follow-Up
2023, Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgeryTenotomy or Tenodesis for Tendinopathy of the Long Head of the Biceps Brachii: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
2021, Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and RehabilitationCitation Excerpt :These were: Constant score, with a minimal clinically important difference of 10 to 17 points7-9 American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score10
Arthroscopic Autologous Scapular Spine Bone Graft Combined With Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability With Subcritical (10%-15%) Glenoid Bone Loss
2021, Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgeryThe minimal important change for the seven-item disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH 7) questionnaire – Assessing shoulder function in patients with subacromial pain
2021, JSES InternationalCitation Excerpt :The scale used was a 5-point Likert scale with alternative answers: recovered (1), large improvement (2), small improvement (3), unchanged (4), and worse (5).15 To define improvement in this study, the scale was dichotomized into “importantly improved” (patients reporting being recovered or largely improved) and “not importantly improved” (patients reporting small improvement, unchanged, or worse).16 Descriptive statistics were calculated and presented for baseline characteristics.
Management of irreparable massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, reoperation rates, and treatment response
2020, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow SurgeryCitation Excerpt :The weighted average change in PRO score was influenced by sample size. For the CMS, we used MCIDs of 15 for nonoperative treatment and 30 for operative management.32 For the ASES score, we used MCIDs of 17 for nonoperative treatment and 39 for operative management.20
Ethical approval: The study was approved by the ethics committee in Linköping (dnr: M124-07). All participants gave written informed consent.
Data sharing: Physiotherapy protocols, statistical code, and data set are available from the corresponding author at [email protected].