肩袖修复手术对疼痛和功能的最小值得影响:一项利弊权衡研究

Harrison J Hansford, Rachelle Buchbinder, Joshua R Zadro, James H McAuley, Manuela L Ferreira, Adriane Lewin, Richard S Page, Ian A Harris
{"title":"肩袖修复手术对疼痛和功能的最小值得影响:一项利弊权衡研究","authors":"Harrison J Hansford, Rachelle Buchbinder, Joshua R Zadro, James H McAuley, Manuela L Ferreira, Adriane Lewin, Richard S Page, Ian A Harris","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.24.24310953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the minimum benefit required in addition to that from a comparator, for an intervention to be considered worthwhile by patients. We aimed to estimate the SWE for rotator cuff repair (with decompression and debridement) compared to either decompression and debridement alone or to non-surgical treatment for people with atraumatic shoulder pain.\nMethods: Benefit-harm trade-off study. We recruited English speaking adults aged 45-75 years with shoulder pain of intensity ≥4 (on a 0-10 scale) for ≥6 months to our online survey through paid advertising on Facebook. Participants must have sought care in the past 6-months and could not have had recent shoulder surgery or significant recent shoulder trauma. Participants were explained three treatments: rotator cuff repair (with subacromial decompression and debridement), subacromial decompression and debridement alone and non-surgical treatment. Participants completed the benefit-harm trade-off survey to determine the SWE of improvements in pain and function for rotator cuff repair compared to the other treatments and again after one week to assess reliability. We used univariable linear regression to estimate associations between baseline characteristics and SWE.\nResults: We recruited 56 participants. The mean (standard deviation) age was 58.4 (6.7) years and 39 (70%) were female. For rotator cuff repair to be worthwhile compared to decompression and debridement alone participants needed to see at least a median 40% (interquartile range (IQR) 20-62.5) between-group improvement in pain and function. Compared to non-surgical treatment, the SWE was a median 40% (IQR 30-60). On the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index the SWE values equate to a between-group improvement of 28/100 points (533/2100 on the raw WORC score). Female sex was associated with larger SWEs for both comparisons. Reliability analyses were underpowered, 25/56(45%) provided follow-up data; the intraclass correlation coefficient estimates ranged from 0.60-0.77. Conclusions: This SWE indicates the benefit required by people with shoulder pain to consider the costs and risks of surgical rotator cuff repair worthwhile is larger than previously estimated minimum clinically important differences (13.5-28/100 on the WORC Index). This SWE may be used to inform the design or interpret the findings of trials of these comparisons.","PeriodicalId":501051,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The smallest worthwhile effect on pain and function for rotator cuff repair surgery: a benefit-harm trade-off study\",\"authors\":\"Harrison J Hansford, Rachelle Buchbinder, Joshua R Zadro, James H McAuley, Manuela L Ferreira, Adriane Lewin, Richard S Page, Ian A Harris\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.07.24.24310953\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the minimum benefit required in addition to that from a comparator, for an intervention to be considered worthwhile by patients. We aimed to estimate the SWE for rotator cuff repair (with decompression and debridement) compared to either decompression and debridement alone or to non-surgical treatment for people with atraumatic shoulder pain.\\nMethods: Benefit-harm trade-off study. We recruited English speaking adults aged 45-75 years with shoulder pain of intensity ≥4 (on a 0-10 scale) for ≥6 months to our online survey through paid advertising on Facebook. Participants must have sought care in the past 6-months and could not have had recent shoulder surgery or significant recent shoulder trauma. Participants were explained three treatments: rotator cuff repair (with subacromial decompression and debridement), subacromial decompression and debridement alone and non-surgical treatment. Participants completed the benefit-harm trade-off survey to determine the SWE of improvements in pain and function for rotator cuff repair compared to the other treatments and again after one week to assess reliability. We used univariable linear regression to estimate associations between baseline characteristics and SWE.\\nResults: We recruited 56 participants. The mean (standard deviation) age was 58.4 (6.7) years and 39 (70%) were female. For rotator cuff repair to be worthwhile compared to decompression and debridement alone participants needed to see at least a median 40% (interquartile range (IQR) 20-62.5) between-group improvement in pain and function. Compared to non-surgical treatment, the SWE was a median 40% (IQR 30-60). On the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index the SWE values equate to a between-group improvement of 28/100 points (533/2100 on the raw WORC score). Female sex was associated with larger SWEs for both comparisons. Reliability analyses were underpowered, 25/56(45%) provided follow-up data; the intraclass correlation coefficient estimates ranged from 0.60-0.77. Conclusions: This SWE indicates the benefit required by people with shoulder pain to consider the costs and risks of surgical rotator cuff repair worthwhile is larger than previously estimated minimum clinically important differences (13.5-28/100 on the WORC Index). This SWE may be used to inform the design or interpret the findings of trials of these comparisons.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.24.24310953\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.24.24310953","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:最小值得效应(SWE)是指患者认为值得采取干预措施时,除参照物之外所需的最小获益。我们的目的是估算肩袖修复术(减压和清创)与单纯减压和清创或与肩关节非创伤性疼痛患者的非手术治疗相比的最小值得效应:方法:利弊权衡研究。我们通过 Facebook 上的付费广告,招募年龄在 45-75 岁之间、肩痛强度≥4(0-10 分制)且持续时间≥6 个月的英语成年人参与我们的在线调查。参与者必须在过去 6 个月内接受过治疗,且近期未接受过肩部手术或严重的肩部外伤。我们向参与者解释了三种治疗方法:肩袖修复术(肩峰下减压清创术)、肩峰下减压清创术和非手术治疗。参试者完成了利益-伤害权衡调查,以确定肩袖修复术与其他治疗相比在疼痛和功能改善方面的 SWE,并在一周后再次进行调查以评估可靠性。我们使用单变量线性回归来估计基线特征与 SWE 之间的关联:我们招募了 56 名参与者。平均年龄(标准差)为 58.4 (6.7)岁,其中 39 人(70%)为女性。与单纯的减压和清创术相比,肩袖修复术的价值在于参与者的疼痛和功能改善程度在组间至少达到中位数 40%(四分位间距 (IQR) 20-62.5)。与非手术治疗相比,SWE 的中位数为 40%(IQR 30-60)。在西安大略肩袖指数(WORC)中,SWE 值相当于组间改善 28/100 分(WORC 原始分数为 533/2100)。在两种比较中,女性与更大的 SWE 值相关。可靠性分析的研究对象不足,有 25/56 人(45%)提供了随访数据;类内相关系数估计值在 0.60-0.77 之间。结论:该SWE表明肩痛患者在考虑肩袖修复手术的成本和风险时所需要的获益比之前估计的最小临床重要性差异(WORC指数为13.5-28/100)要大。该 SWE 值可用于为这些比较试验的设计提供信息或解释试验结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The smallest worthwhile effect on pain and function for rotator cuff repair surgery: a benefit-harm trade-off study
Background: The smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the minimum benefit required in addition to that from a comparator, for an intervention to be considered worthwhile by patients. We aimed to estimate the SWE for rotator cuff repair (with decompression and debridement) compared to either decompression and debridement alone or to non-surgical treatment for people with atraumatic shoulder pain. Methods: Benefit-harm trade-off study. We recruited English speaking adults aged 45-75 years with shoulder pain of intensity ≥4 (on a 0-10 scale) for ≥6 months to our online survey through paid advertising on Facebook. Participants must have sought care in the past 6-months and could not have had recent shoulder surgery or significant recent shoulder trauma. Participants were explained three treatments: rotator cuff repair (with subacromial decompression and debridement), subacromial decompression and debridement alone and non-surgical treatment. Participants completed the benefit-harm trade-off survey to determine the SWE of improvements in pain and function for rotator cuff repair compared to the other treatments and again after one week to assess reliability. We used univariable linear regression to estimate associations between baseline characteristics and SWE. Results: We recruited 56 participants. The mean (standard deviation) age was 58.4 (6.7) years and 39 (70%) were female. For rotator cuff repair to be worthwhile compared to decompression and debridement alone participants needed to see at least a median 40% (interquartile range (IQR) 20-62.5) between-group improvement in pain and function. Compared to non-surgical treatment, the SWE was a median 40% (IQR 30-60). On the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index the SWE values equate to a between-group improvement of 28/100 points (533/2100 on the raw WORC score). Female sex was associated with larger SWEs for both comparisons. Reliability analyses were underpowered, 25/56(45%) provided follow-up data; the intraclass correlation coefficient estimates ranged from 0.60-0.77. Conclusions: This SWE indicates the benefit required by people with shoulder pain to consider the costs and risks of surgical rotator cuff repair worthwhile is larger than previously estimated minimum clinically important differences (13.5-28/100 on the WORC Index). This SWE may be used to inform the design or interpret the findings of trials of these comparisons.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信