Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) for the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is an important instrument in the interpretation of changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). To our knowledge, no MCID of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) score has ever been reported and no studies have reported an MCID for the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) based on patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, treated with an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The aim of this study was to determine MCID for WOOS and OSS in a cohort of patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA. METHODS: All patients treated with an aTSA for glenohumeral osteoarthritis at our institution between March 2017 and February 2019 were included. Each patient completed the WOOS and the OSS preoperatively and one year postoperatively. At one year, the patients were asked to rate their overall improvement on a 7-point scale. We used an anchor-based method as our primary method to calculate the MCID, supported by two different distribution-based methods. RESULTS: A total of 45 primary aTSA were included. The MCID of WOOS was 12.3 according to the anchor-based method and 14.2 and 10.3 according to the two distribution-based methods. The MCID of OSS was 4.3 according to the anchor-based method and 5.8 and 4.3 according to the two distribution-based methods. CONCLUSION: The anchor-based method is considered superior to the distribution-based method, and therefore we advocate to use this as MCID. For patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with an aTSA, the MCID values were 12.3 points for WOOS and 4.3 points for OSS. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report a MCID value for WOOS and the first study to report a MCID value for OSS in this subgroup of patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".