"Trustworthiness," confidence in estimated effects, and confidently translating research into clinical practice

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Shortened Version of the DASH (QuickDASH) in People With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and its shortened version (ie, the QuickDASH).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched up to July 2022. Studies on people with upper limb musculoskeletal disorders that calculated the MCID by anchor-based methods were included. Descriptive and quantitative synthesis was used for the MCID and the minimal detectable change with 90% confidence (MDC90). Fixed-effects models and random-effect models were used for the meta-analysis. I2 statistics was computed to assess heterogeneity. The methodological quality of studies was assessed with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist for measurement error and an adaptation of the checklist for the studies on MCID proposed by Bohannon and Glenney.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (1677 patients) were included, producing 17 MCID estimates ranging from 8.3 to 18.0 DASH points and 8.0 to 18.1 QuickDASH points. The pooled MCIDs were 11.00 DASH points (95% CI = 8.59-13.41; I2 = 0%) and 11.97 QuickDASH points (95% CI = 9.60-14.33; I2 = 0%). The pooled MDC90s were 9.04 DASH points (95% CI = 6.46-11.62; I2 = 0%) and 9.03 QuickDASH points (95% CI = 6.36-11.71; I2 = 18%). Great methodological heterogeneity in the calculation of the MCID was identified among the primary studies.

CONCLUSION

Reasonable MCID ranges of 12 to 14 DASH points and 12 to 15 QuickDASH points were established. The lower boundaries represent the first available measure above the pooled MDC90, and the upper limits represent the upper 95% CI of the pooled MCID.

IMPACT

Reasonable ranges for the MCID of 12 to 14 DASH points and 12 to 15 QuickDASH points were proposed. The lower boundaries represent the first available measure above the pooled MDC90, and the upper limits represent the upper 95% CI of the pooled MCID. Information regarding the interpretability of the 2 questionnaires was derived from very different methodologies, making it difficult to identify reliable thresholds. Now clinicians and researchers can rely on more credible data. The proposed MCIDs should be used to assess people with musculoskeletal disorders. Heterogeneity was found related particularly to the anchor levels used in the primary studies. To promote comparability of MCID values, shared rules defining the most appropriate types of anchoring will be needed in the near future.

Is there 'trustworthy' evidence for using manual therapy to treat patients with shoulder dysfunction?: A systematic review

The primary objective of this review was to create a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review and meta-analysis for the application of manual therapy interventions in treating patients with shoulder dysfunction. Included studies were English-language randomized controlled trials published between 1/1/2010 and 8/3/2023, with searches performed in: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINHAL, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, EBSCO Medline, and PEDro. The population of focus included adults 18 years and older with musculoskeletal impairments related to shoulder dysfunction. Our primary outcomes included pain and region-specific outcome measures. We excluded trials, including participants having shoulder dysfunction resulting from surgery, radicular pain, instability/dislocation, fracture, lymphedema, and radiation. Our screening methodology was based upon a previously published 'trustworthy' systematic review protocol. This included the application of our PICOTS criteria in addition to screening for prospective clinical trial registration and following of prospective intent, as well as assessment of PEDro scores, risk-of-bias ratings, GRADE scoring, and examination of confidence in estimated effects. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met our PICOTS criteria; however, only 15 of these were registered. Only three were registered prospectively. Two of these did not have discussions and conclusions that aligned with their primary outcome. The remaining single study was found to have a high risk-of-bias, meaning the remainder of the protocol could not be employed and that no randomized controlled trials could undergo further assessment or meta-analysis. The results of this systematic review indicate there are no 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of manual therapy interventions for the treatment of patients with shoulder dysfunction, as defined by the prospectively established methodology. Therefore, these findings signal that creating a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review on this clinically relevant topic is not yet possible due to a lack of 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials.