Editor's spotlight/take 5: Comparative responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences for idiopathic ulnar impaction syndrome (DOI 10.1007/s11999-013-2843-8)

摘要

We have come a long way in reporting about what really matters in clinical research. In the early 1960s, Neviaser summarized his results of surgery for large rotator cuff tears rather simply: "My own experience has shown that ... massive ruptures with marked separation and retraction of the cuff do not do well by operative repair" [1]. He reported nothing regarding patients' pain or function after surgery. This was common at the time.More recently, an appropriate focus has been placed on patient-centered outcomes tools. Instead of qualitative comments like Neviaser's, and in lieu of lists of physical findings or radiographic signs - ROM, lucent Lines - that may or may not correlate with patient satisfaction, we now use numerous surveys which are "validated" to greater or lesser degrees. This is a clear improvement, but the problem is far from solved.