Prospective cohort study of 81 patients with rotator cuff tendinitis or tears treated nonoperatively. Used an anchor-based methodology to define the smallest change in ASES and SST scores that patients actually perceive as meaningful. Answers the question: how much does a score have to move before it matters to the patient?
A statistically significant improvement in an outcome score means nothing if the change is smaller than what the patient actually perceives as meaningful.
When you are evaluating whether a patient with rotator cuff disease responded to conservative treatment, use these thresholds: less than 2 points on the SST or less than 12 points on the ASES does not represent a clinically important improvement, regardless of p-value.
These numbers also belong in your research toolkit. When designing or critiquing a rotator cuff outcomes study, the sample size calculation and the definition of treatment success should be anchored to a 12–17 point ASES change or a 2-point SST change — not to statistical significance alone.
One practical nuance: the prior ASES MCID of 6.4 points (Michener et al.) came from a heterogeneous mixed-diagnosis cohort. Applying that lower threshold to rotator cuff patients specifically would falsely classify many non-responders as improved.
Prospective cohort study of 81 patients with rotator cuff tendinitis or tears treated nonoperatively. Used an anchor-based methodology to define the smallest change in ASES and SST scores that patients actually perceive as meaningful. Answers the question: how much does a score have to move before it matters to the patient?
A statistically significant improvement in an outcome score means nothing if the change is smaller than what the patient actually perceives as meaningful.
When you are evaluating whether a patient with rotator cuff disease responded to conservative treatment, use these thresholds: less than 2 points on the SST or less than 12 points on the ASES does not represent a clinically important improvement, regardless of p-value.
These numbers also belong in your research toolkit. When designing or critiquing a rotator cuff outcomes study, the sample size calculation and the definition of treatment success should be anchored to a 12–17 point ASES change or a 2-point SST change — not to statistical significance alone.
One practical nuance: the prior ASES MCID of 6.4 points (Michener et al.) came from a heterogeneous mixed-diagnosis cohort. Applying that lower threshold to rotator cuff patients specifically would falsely classify many non-responders as improved.