Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) of upper extremity PROMIS scores following arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

To calculate and determine what factors are associated with achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR).

Related collections

Most cited references 50

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners

Paul Harris, Robert Taylor, Brenda Minor … (2019)

The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management platform was developed in 2004 to address an institutional need at Vanderbilt University, then shared with a limited number of adopting sites beginning in 2006. Given bi-directional benefit in early sharing experiments, we created a broader consortium sharing and support model for any academic, non-profit, or government partner wishing to adopt the software. Our sharing framework and consortium-based support model have evolved over time along with the size of the consortium (currently more than 3200 REDCap partners across 128 countries). While the "REDCap Consortium" model represents only one example of how to build and disseminate a software platform, lessons learned from our approach may assist other research institutions seeking to build and disseminate innovative technologies.

0 comments Cited 5490 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Using Effect Size-or Why the P Value Is Not Enough.

Gail M Sullivan, Richard Feinn (2012)

0 comments Cited 818 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

National trends in rotator cuff repair.

Alexis Chiang Colvin, Natalia Egorova, Alicia Harrison … (2012)

Recent publications suggest that arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repairs have had comparable clinical results, although each technique has distinct advantages and disadvantages. National hospital and ambulatory surgery databases were reviewed to identify practice patterns for rotator cuff repair. The rates of medical visits for rotator cuff pathology, and the rates of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, were examined for the years 1996 and 2006 in the United States. The national incidence of rotator cuff repairs and related data were obtained from inpatient (National Hospital Discharge Survey, NHDS) and ambulatory surgery (National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery, NSAS) databases. These databases were queried with use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes for arthroscopic (ICD-9 codes 83.63 and 80.21) and open (code 83.63 without code 80.21) rotator cuff repair. We also examined where the surgery was performed (inpatient versus ambulatory surgery center) and characteristics of the patients, including age, sex, and comorbidities. The unadjusted volume of all rotator cuff repairs increased 141% in the decade from 1996 to 2006. The unadjusted number of arthroscopic procedures increased by 600% while open repairs increased by only 34% during this time interval. There was a significant shift from inpatient to outpatient surgery (p < 0.001). The increase in national rates of rotator cuff repair over the last decade has been dramatic, particularly for arthroscopic assisted repair.