Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

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

Cvetanovich, Gregory L., Gowd, Anirudh K., Liu, Joseph N., Nwachukwu, Benedict U., Cabarcas, Brandon C., Cole, Brian J., Forsythe, Brian, Romeo, Anthony A., Verma, Nikhil N.·2019·Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.013

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 294

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.