The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimal Clinically Important Differences in ASES and Simple Shoulder Test Scores After Nonoperative Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The minimal clinically important difference is the smallest difference in an outcome score that a patient perceives as beneficial. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimal clinically important difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and in the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score for patients treated nonoperatively for rotator cuff disease. METHODS: Eighty-one patients with tendinitis or a tear of the rotator cuff were treated with nonoperative modalities. Evaluation with the ASES score and the SST was performed at baseline and at a minimum of six weeks after treatment. At the follow-up evaluation, the minimal clinically important difference was estimated for the two scores with use of an anchor-based approach involving fifteen-item (pain and function) and four-item improvement questions. RESULTS: The fifteen-item function and four-item assessments indicated, respectively, that a 2.05-point (p = 0.02) and 2.33-point (p = 0.0009) change in the SST score from baseline represented a minimal clinically important difference. The fifteen-item function, fifteen-item pain, and four-item assessments indicated that a 12.01-point (p = 0.03), 16.92-point (p = 0.004), and 16.72-point (p < 0.0001) change in the ASES score from baseline represented a minimal clinically important difference. Age, sex, initial baseline scores, and hand dominance had no effect on the minimal clinically important differences (p > 0.05). A longer duration of follow-up after treatment was associated with a greater minimal clinically important difference in the ASES score (p < 0.05), although the duration of follow-up had no effect on the minimal clinically important difference in the SST score. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with rotator cuff disease who are treated without surgery and have a 2-point change in the SST score or a 12 to 17-point change in the ASES score experience a clinically important change in self-assessed outcome. These minimal clinically important differences can provide the basis for determining if significant differences in outcomes after treatment are clinically relevant.
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
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
A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function
Richards, R. R., An, K.-N., Bigliani, L. U., Friedman, R. J., Gartsman, G. M., Gristina, A. G., Iannotti, J. P., Mow, V. C., Sidles, J. A., & Zuckerman, J. D. (1994) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/s1058-2746(09)80019-0 · Cited by 1,726
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.2004.022905 · Cited by 1,094
Interpretation of quality of life changes
Lydick, E., & Epstein, R. S. (1993) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf00435226 · Cited by 527
Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires
Beaton, D., & Richards, R. R. (1998) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/s1058-2746(98)90002-7 · Cited by 302
Evidence of Reliability and Responsiveness for the Hip Outcome Score
Martin, R. L., & Philippon, M. J. (2008) · Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.12.011 · Cited by 284
The Penn Shoulder Score: Reliability and validity
Leggin, B. G., Michener, L. A., Shaffer, M. A., Brenneman, S. K., Iannotti, J. P., & Williams, G. R. (2006) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.36.3.138 · Cited by 278
Measuring Function of the Shoulder. A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Five Questionnaires*
BEATON, D. E., & RICHARDS, R. R. (1996) · The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/00004623-199606000-00011 · Cited by 275
Cited by
Minimal Clinically Important Differences of 3 Patient-Rated Outcomes Instruments
Sorensen, A. A., Howard, D., Tan, W. H., Ketchersid, J., & Calfee, R. P. (2013) · The Journal of Hand Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032 · Cited by 466
Cook, J., Hislop, J., Adewuyi, T., Harrild, K., Altman, D., Ramsay, C., Fraser, C., Buckley, B., Fayers, P., Harvey, I., et al. (2014) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta18280 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Tashjian, R. Z., Deloach, J., Green, A., Porucznik, C. A., & Powell, A. P.
- Venue
- The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 296-303
- ISSN
- 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2122633546
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 8.38
- 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: Minimal Clinically Important Differences in ASES and Simple Shoulder Test Scores After Nonoperative Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2106/jbjs.h.01296
- The paper
- Tashjian, R. Z., Deloach, J., Green, A., Porucznik, C. A., & Powell, A. P. (2010). Minimal Clinically Important Differences in ASES and Simple Shoulder Test Scores After Nonoperative Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.h.01296
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.