Advertisement

Defining Substantial Clinical Benefit for Patient-Rated Outcome Tools for Shoulder Impingement Syndrome

Published:November 19, 2012DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.11.011

      Abstract

      Objective

      To define for 2 shoulder outcomes scales the substantial clinical benefit (SCB)—a metric that defines the change amount associated with patient perception of a large meaningful improvement and that can be used to interpret change over time in the outcome score.

      Design

      Cohort.

      Setting

      Clinic.

      Participants

      Patients (N=74) with shoulder impingement syndrome.

      Interventions

      Standardized exercise and manual therapy for 6 weeks, and outcome measures completed at initial evaluation, discharge, and 6 to 8 weeks postdischarge.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Pennsylvania Shoulder Score (Penn), and a 13-point Global Rating of Change (GROC). Patients were classified as “substantially improved” when they reported “quite a bit better” (11) or greater on the GROC at discharge and again 6 to 8 weeks after discharge. Patients with GROC <11 at discharge or follow-up were classified as “nonsubstantially improved.” The percentage and raw points change in the Penn and DASH that corresponded with patient-rated substantial improvement was determined with receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses.

      Results

      ROC analyses revealed the SCB for the DASH was 40% (area under the curve [AUC]=.79; confidence interval [CI], .69–.89) and 11 points (AUC=.63; CI, .50–.76); and for the Penn, 20% (AUC=.76; CI, .65–.87) and 21 points (AUC=.80; CI, .69–.90).

      Conclusions

      The SCB of 40% for the DASH, and 20% and 21 points for the Penn represents substantial improvement over 6 weeks of care, which was sustained at 12 weeks. The SCB of 11 points for the DASH is not recommended for use because of poor discrimination. The SCB can be used to enable clinical decision-making and in future clinical trials. Alternative approaches such as the within- and between-group change values can produce different SCB values.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      AUC (area under the curve), CI (confidence interval), DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand), GROC (Global Rating of Change), ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient), MCID (minimal clinically important difference), Penn (Pennsylvania Shoulder Score), ROC (receiver operating characteristic), SCB (substantial clinical benefit)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hudak P.L.
        • Amadio P.C.
        • Bombardier C.
        Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG).
        Am J Ind Med. 1996; 29: 602-608
        • Leggin B.G.
        • Michener L.A.
        • Shaffer M.A.
        • Brenneman S.K.
        • Iannotti J.P.
        • Williams Jr., G.R.
        The Penn shoulder score: reliability and validity.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36: 138-151
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Bombardier C.
        • Katz J.N.
        • et al.
        Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference.
        J Rheumatol. 2001; 28: 400-405
        • Glassman S.D.
        • Copay A.G.
        • Berven S.H.
        • Polly D.W.
        • Subach B.R.
        • Carreon L.Y.
        Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90: 1839-1847
        • Schmitt J.S.
        • Di Fabio R.P.
        Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57: 1008-1018
        • Jaeschke R.
        • Singer J.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.
        Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10: 407-415
        • Wright A.A.
        • Cook C.E.
        • Baxter G.D.
        • Dockerty J.D.
        • Abbott J.H.
        A comparison of 3 methodological approaches to defining major clinically important improvement of 4 performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011; 41: 319-327
        • Tate A.R.
        • McClure P.W.
        • Young I.A.
        • Salvatori R.
        • Michener L.A.
        Comprehensive impairment-based exercise and manual therapy intervention for patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: a case series.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010; 40: 474-493
        • Michener L.A.
        • Walsworth M.K.
        • Burnet E.N.
        Effectiveness of rehabilitation for patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: a systematic review.
        J Hand Ther. 2004; 17: 152-164
        • Kromer T.O.
        • Tautenhahn U.G.
        • de Bie R.A.
        • Staal J.B.
        • Bastiaenen C.H.
        Effects of physiotherapy in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome: a systematic review of the literature.
        J Rehabil Med. 2009; 41: 870-880
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Katz J.N.
        • Fossel A.H.
        • Wright J.G.
        • Tarasuk V.
        • Bombardier C.
        Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity.
        J Hand Ther. 2001; 14: 128-146
        • Kirkley A.
        • Griffin S.
        • McLintock H.
        • Ng L.
        The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI).
        Am J Sports Med. 1998; 26: 764-772
        • Gummesson C.
        • Atroshi I.
        • Ekdahl C.
        The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003; 4: 11
        • Roy J.S.
        • MacDermid J.C.
        • Woodhouse L.J.
        Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2009; 61: 623-632
        • Gabel C.P.
        • Michener L.A.
        • Burkett B.
        • Neller A.
        The Upper Limb Functional Index: development and determination of reliability, validity, and responsiveness.
        J Hand Ther. 2006; 19: 328-348
        • Hanley J.A.
        • McNeil B.J.
        The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
        Radiology. 1982; 143: 29-36
        • Salaffi F.
        • Stancati A.
        • Silvestri C.A.
        • Ciapetti A.
        • Grassi W.
        Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale.
        Eur J Pain. 2004; 8: 283-291
        • Childs J.D.
        • Piva S.R.
        • Fritz J.M.
        Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain.
        Spine. 2005; 30: 1331-1334
        • Stratford P.W.
        • Binkley F.M.
        • Riddle D.L.
        Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores.
        Phys Ther. 1996; 76: 1109-1123
        • Dworkin R.H.
        • Turk D.C.
        • McDermott M.P.
        • et al.
        Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.
        Pain. 2009; 146: 238-244
        • Cook K.F.
        • Gartsman G.M.
        • Roddey T.S.
        • Olson S.L.
        The measurement level and trait-specific reliability of 4 scales of shoulder functioning: an empiric investigation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82: 1558-1565
        • ten Klooster P.M.
        • Drossaers-Bakker K.W.
        • Taal E.
        • van de Laar M.A.
        Patient-perceived satisfactory improvement (PPSI): interpreting meaningful change in pain from the patient's perspective.
        Pain. 2006; 121: 151-157
        • Beaton D.
        • Richards R.R.
        Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998; 7: 565-572
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Richards R.R.
        Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996; 78: 882-890
        • Mintken P.E.
        • Glynn P.
        • Cleland J.A.
        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; 18: 920-926
        • Robinson M.E.
        • Brown J.L.
        • George S.Z.
        • et al.
        Multidimensional success criteria and expectations for treatment of chronic pain: the patient perspective.
        Pain Med. 2005; 6: 336-345
        • Norman G.R.
        • Stratford P.
        • Regehr G.
        Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50: 869-879
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Norman G.R.
        • Juniper E.F.
        • Griffith L.E.
        A critical look at transition ratings.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55: 900-908
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Tarasuk V.
        • Katz J.N.
        • Wright J.G.
        • Bombardier C.
        “Are you better?” A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2001; 45: 270-279
        • ten Klooster P.M.
        • Drossaers-Bakker K.W.
        • Taal E.
        • van de Laar M.A.
        Can we assess baseline pain and global health retrospectively?.
        Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2007; 25: 176-181