The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Establishing clinically significant outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair
Abstract
BACKGROUND Outcomes reporting in rotator cuff repair (RCR) literature has been variable. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) bridge the gap between statistical significance and clinical relevance. METHODS The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Constant-Murley (Constant) scores were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively for patients undergoing RCR between 2014 and 2017. An anchor-based approach was used to calculate the MCID, SCB change, and PASS for the ASES questionnaire. RESULTS The study included 288 patients who underwent RCR. The MCID, SCB, and PASS were, respectively, 11.1, 17.5, and 86.7 for ASES, 4.6, 5.5, and 23.3 for the Constant score, and 16.9, 29.8, and 82.5 for the SANE score. Factors associated with reduced odds of achieving MCID were current smoking for ASES (odds ratio, 0.056) and single-row repair for the Constant score (odds ratio, 0.310). Workers' compensation patients had reduced odds of achieving ASES SCB (odds ratio, 0.267) and were associated with reduced odds of achieving PASS by ASES (odds ratio, 0.244), SANE (OR, 0.452), and Constant (odds ratio, 0.313). Lower preoperative scores were associated with achieving MCID and SCB and higher preoperative Constant scores associated with PASS (P < .001). CONCLUSION This study establishes MCID, SCB, and PASS for ASES, Constant, and SANE scores in patients undergoing RCR. Factors associated with failing to achieve clinically significant values included current smoking, single-row repairs, high body mass index, and workers' compensation status.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Clinical Method of Functional Assessment of the Shoulder
Constant, C. R., & G. Murley, A. H. (1987) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/00003086-198701000-00023 · Cited by 5,300
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6 · Cited by 4,982
Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire
JUNIPER, E. (1994) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1 · Cited by 1,824
Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status Measures
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.4065/77.4.371 · Cited by 1,500
Michener, L. A., McClure, P. W., & Sennett, B. J. (2002) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1067/mse.2002.127096 · Cited by 1,125
Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Baron, G., Falissard, B., Logeart, I., Bellamy, N., Bombardier, C., Felson, D., Hochberg, M., van der Heijde, D., et al. (2005) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard.2004.023028 · Cited by 640
Comparison of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation Method and Two Shoulder Rating Scales
Williams, G. N., Gangel, T. J., Arciero, R. A., Uhorchak, J. M., & Taylor, D. C. (1999) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/03635465990270021701 · Cited by 596
Scoring Systems for the Functional Assessment of the Shoulder
Kirkley, A., Griffin, S., & Dainty, K. (2003) · Arthroscopy · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.10.030 · Cited by 504
Harris, J. D., Brand, J. C., Cote, M. P., Faucett, S. C., & Dhawan, A. (2017) · Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.053 · Cited by 498
Kukkonen, J., Kauko, T., Vahlberg, T., Joukainen, A., & Äärimaa, V. (2013) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.002 · Cited by 449
Cited by
Correia, F. D., Molinos, M., Luís, S., Carvalho, D., Carvalho, C., Costa, P., Seabra, R., Francisco, G., Bento, V., & Lains, J. (2022) · American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001780 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Cvetanovich, G. L., Gowd, A. K., Liu, J. N., Nwachukwu, B. U., Cabarcas, B. C., Cole, B. J., Forsythe, B., Romeo, A. A., & Verma, N. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 939-948
- ISSN
- 1058-2746 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2912384132
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 29.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Establishing clinically significant outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.013
- The paper
- Cvetanovich, G. L., Gowd, A. K., Liu, J. N., Nwachukwu, B. U., Cabarcas, B. C., Cole, B. J., Forsythe, B., Romeo, A. A., & Verma, N. N. (2019). Establishing clinically significant outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.013
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.