Search

Introduction: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a valuable tool for patient-based outcome analysis, for which limited data is available in the literature, especially after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Although several studies have reported MCID after ARCR, few have studied the impact of various clinical factors such as Diabetes, pseudoparalysis, type of cuff repair, and retear over MCID. This study attempts to determine the MCID in shoulder functional scores after ARCR and the impact of various factors on MCID. Methods: 144 patients undergoing ARCR were prospectively evaluated at six and 12 months by ASES and UCLA scores. MCID for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and the University of California and Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were calculated using an anchor-based and distribution-based approach. MCID was also calculated for diabetic and non-diabetic patients, smokers vs. non-smokers, presence or absence of pseudoparalysis, type of cuff repair (single row vs. suture bridge), and presence of retears. Uni- and multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors affecting the MCID of both scores. Results: Mean MCID for ASES score was 13.3 and 16.6 using an anchor-based and distribution-based approach, respectively. For the UCLA score, the mean MCID was 10.0 and 12.6 by anchor-based and 12.6 by distribution-based approach, respectively. Patients with higher pre-operative ASES scores demonstrated lower MCID values. No significant difference was observed in MCID scores of diabetic vs. non-diabetic patients, smoker vs. non-smoker, patients with or without pseudoparalysis, and type of cuff repair. The age, gender, and presence of retear did not affect MCID values. Conclusion: This study establishes the MCID values of ASES and UCLA scores for rotator cuff repair by anchor and distribution methods. No patient or surgical factors appear to affect the MCID except pre-operative ASES scores. Study design: Prospective cohort, Level II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family magazines can play an important role in the diffusion of medical information and information regarding drugs to a 'lay audience'. We describe what kind of drugs are discussed in the family magazines and which information regarding these drugs is given. Furthermore, we look into the information sources for journalists; special attention is paid to the role of the pharmacist: is (s)he recognized by journalists as one of the experts on drugs? Two approaches were used in order to answer the above described research questions: a content analysis of family magazines and indepth interviews of journalists. Gynaecological products as well as drugs for the central nervous system receive much attention in family magazines. The kind of information given about drugs is limited. Only part of the publications pays attention to side-effects. Patients asking questions about drugs in response to publications in family magazines know the name of a drug but are rarely informed about other aspects of the therapy, such as side-effects. In the provision of information physicians and medical specialists play an important role as sources of information for journalists. There is, however, until now no role for the pharmacist as a source of information on drugs in family magazines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emphasizes the need for communicating scientific information to general public by researchers. Importance of the popularization of research in keeping the masses informed about various changes in science; Sources for disseminating information; Tips for scientists to enhance their writing skills.