Patient-led use of patient-reported outcome measure in self-Management of a Rotator Cuff Injury

Variability of MCID, SCB, and PASS Thresholds in Studies Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

An increasing reliance on patient-reported outcomes has led to greater emphasis on minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds in assessing rotator cuff repairs.

PURPOSE

To review the MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds reported for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after rotator cuff repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were queried for full-text journal articles in English published between January 1, 2000, and May 31, 2022. Studies with MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds reported for patients with rotator cuff repair and a minimum of 12 months of follow-up were included. Reported MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds and associated calculation methods were extracted.

RESULTS

There were 41 unique studies (6331 shoulders) that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 37 (90%) reported MCID; 16 (39%), PASS; and 11 (27%), SCB values. The most common PROMs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and the Constant-Murley score. In total, 71% (29/41) of these studies referenced values in the literature, usually studies of patients undergoing rotator cuff repair (21/29). Twelve studies calculated MCID, SCB, or PASS thresholds using anchor-based approaches, whereas 6 studies also calculated thresholds using distribution-based methods. The use of MCID, SCB, and PASS in the rotator cuff repair literature is increasing, with half of the included studies published within the final 17 months of the studied period.

CONCLUSION

Significant variability was seen in the reporting of MCID, SCB, and PASS threshold values after rotator cuff repair. Researchers should prioritize studies that report clinical outcome thresholds calculated using anchor-based methods and should critically review both the anchor question and its response choices. Standardization of MCID, SCB, and PASS values and calculation methods will allow for a more reliable assessment of PROMs in rotator cuff repair moving forward.

A new self-assessment tool following shoulder stabilization surgery, the auto-Walch and auto-Rowe questionnaires

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) are increasingly used for patient evaluation, as well as for scientific research. Few are used for practical purposes in the clinical setting, and few are reliable enough to allow proper feedback to physicians. Two of the most commonly used assessment tools in shoulder instability are the Walch-Duplay and the Rowe scores. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of self-administered versions of the Walch-Duplay and Rowe scores following shoulder stabilization procedure.

METHODS

Between the months of May and December 2021, all patients who were followed in one of six institutions for shoulder instability were included. Patients were required to anonymously fill a self-administered version of Walch-Duplay and Rowe score. The classic scores were measured by the surgeon. Correlations between self-assessment and physician-assessment were then recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were evaluated during the study period. Using the Spearman coefficient for correlation, a strong correlation (r > 0.5) was found between the results of the self-administered questionnaire and the surgeon-measured score. The difference between surgeon- and patient-administered questionnaires was non-significant.

CONCLUSION

The self-administered version of the Walch-Duplay and Rowe questionnaires can reliably be used in the clinical setting for post-operative follow-up of patients undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Meditative practices, stress and sleep among students studying complementary and integrative health: a cross-sectional analysis

Background

The International Cohort on Lifestyle Determinants of Health (INCLD Health) is an ongoing, prospective cohort study assessing the health behaviours and lifestyles of higher education students, including their use of specialty diets and complementary and integrative health (CIH) practices. Purpose: This cross-sectional analysis of the INCLD Health cohort aims to (1) evaluate the associations between perceived stress, sleep disturbance, and meditative practices with diurnal salivary free cortisol and (2) evaluate the associations of meditative practices as well as mind-body practices with perceived stress and sleep disturbance.

Methods

Serial multivariable linear regression models, adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle behaviours, were used to assess associations of (1) perceived stress, sleep disturbance, and meditative practices with salivary cortisol, and (2) meditative practices as well as mind-body practices with perceived stress and sleep disturbance. Meditative and mind-body practices were evaluated using a stress-management and self-care survey; perceived stress and sleep disturbance were evaluated using the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the patient reported outcome measures information system-29 (PROMIS-29) sleep sub-score respectively. Salivary cortisol was collected at 4 time points over a 24-hour period and area under the curve (AUC) calculations conducted.

Results

82.5% (n = 80) of participants utilized at least monthly meditative practices. Greater disturbed sleep, but not perceived-stress, meditative, nor mind-body practices was independently associated with increased AUC cortisol (b = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.002–0.05, p = 0.03) after adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and BMI. Neither meditative nor mind-body practices were associated with perceived stress or disturbed sleep.

Conclusions

Among INCLD Health participants, greater sleep disturbance, but not perceived stress or meditative practices were associated with daytime cortisol.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12906-022-03582-5.

Nonoperative treatment of distal humerus fractures in the elderly yields satisfactory functional outcomes and low conversion to delayed surgery: a systematic review

Background

Distal humerus fractures (DHFs) pose a treatment challenge in elderly patients. We sought to systematically review and report the clinical outcomes of the nonoperative approach (eg, "bag of bones") for the treatment of these injuries and the rate of conversion to delayed surgery.

Methods

A comprehensive review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was conducted. Studies involving outcomes after nonoperative treatment of DHF in patients >65 years of age were included from 1985 to present. Data regarding patient age, DHF type, nonoperative treatment method, complications, conversion to delayed surgery, range of motion, union rate, and surgeon- and patient-reported outcome measures were extracted.

Results

A total of five studies met inclusion criteria (all level IV evidence), yielding a total of 143 patients (mean age: 73.5 years to 87.4 years) with 7.1 months to 55 months of follow-up. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Index scores were good to excellent across several studies (range 83-93.1). Multiple studies reported good range of motion (mean arc of motion: 81 to 106 degrees) and low levels of upper extremity disability (mean Quick Disability of the Arm-Shoulder-Hand scores: 31.3 to 38.5) at the final follow-up. The rate of conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and operative fixation ranged from 0% to 7.5% and 0% to 5%, respectively.

Conclusion

Nonoperative management of distal humerus fractures in the elderly seems to be associated with acceptable functional outcomes and low rates of delayed surgery. This information is important for patient counseling and treatment decision-making.