Abstract:Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine reported MCID and PASS values for PROMs following shoulder instability surgery and assess variability in published values depending on the surgery performed. Secondarily, our aims were to describe the methods used to derive MCID and PASS values in the published literature, including anchor-based, distribution-based, or other approaches, and to assess the frequency of MCID and PASS usage in studies on shoulder instability surgery. Methods: A systematic review of MCID and PASS values following Bankart, Latarjet, and Remplissage procedures was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were queried from 1985 to 2023. Inclusion criteria included studies written in English, and studies reporting utilization MCID or PASS for patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) following Latarjet, Bankart, Remplissage approaches for shoulder instability surgery. Extracted data included study population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Continuous data were described using median and range. Categorical variables, including PROMs reported and MCID/PASS methods, were described using percentages. As MCID is a patient-level metric and not a group-level metric, the authors validated that all included studies reported proportions (%) of subjects that met or exceeded the MCID. Results: A total of 174 records were screened, and 8 studies were included in this review. MCID was the most widely utilized outcome threshold which was reported in all 8 studies, with only 2 studies reporting both the MCID and the PASS. The most widely studied PROMs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) (range 5.65-9.6 for distribution MCID, 8.5 anchor MCID, 86 anchor PASS); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) (range 11.4-12.4 distribution MCID, 82.5-87.5 anchor PASS); visual analog scale (VAS) (range 1.1-1.7 distribution MCID, 1.5-2.5 PASS); Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) (range 60.7-254.9 distribution MCID, 126.43 anchor MCID, 571-619.5 anchor PASS); and Rowe scores (range 5.6-8.4 distribution MCID, 9.7 anchor MCID). Notably, no studies reported on substantial clinical benefit (SCB) or maximal outcome improvement (MOI). Conclusion: Despite the wide array of available PROMs for assessing shoulder instability surgery outcomes, the availability of clinically significant outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS remains relatively limited. While MCID has been the most frequently reported metric, there is considerable inter-study variability observed in their values. Clinical relevance: Knowing the outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS of the PROMs frequently used to evaluate the results of glenohumeral stabilization surgery is fundamental, since they allow us to know what is a clinically significant improvement for the patient.

Clinical relevance of patient-reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) Values Following Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Are Highly Dependent on Their Study Population and Calculation Methods: A Systematic Review

Clinically Significant Outcome Scores in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Shoulder and Knee Surgery Are Increasing in Prevalence but Often Reported Incorrectly

The Promising 2-Year Performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Establishing minimal clinically important differences and patient acceptable symptom state thresholds following birmingham hip resurfacing

Minimal important change thresholds change over time after knee and hip arthroplasty

Variability of MCID, SCB, and PASS Thresholds in Studies Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review

High Variability in Standardized Outcome Thresholds of Clinically Important Changes in Shoulder Instability Surgery: A Systematic Review

Meaningful thresholds for patient-reported outcomes following interventions for anterior cruciate ligament tear or traumatic meniscus injury: a systematic review for the OPTIKNEE consensus

Several factors predict the achievement of the patient acceptable symptom state and minimal clinically important difference for patient‐reported outcome measures following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review

Assessing the measurement properties of PROMIS Computer Adaptive Tests, short forms and legacy patient reported outcome measures in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Editorial Commentary: Shoulder Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State Metrics Provide a Foundation for Interpreting Patient-Reported Outcomes

Diagnosis-Specific Thresholds of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for KOOS After Total Knee Arthroplasty

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Changes Greatly Based on the Different Calculation Methods

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) of upper extremity PROMIS scores following arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs

Mental Health Effects on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery

DEFINING THRESHOLDS AND CORRELATIONS FOR ACHIEVING MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE (MCID) AND PATIENT ACCEPTABLE SYMPTOM STATE (PASS) USING IHOT12 IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING PERIACETABULAR OSTEOTOMY (PAO) FOR DYSPLASIA

Meaningful values in the Short Form Health Survey-36 after total knee arthroplasty – an alternative to the EuroQol five-dimension index as a measure for health-related quality of life

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance