These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37245623)

  • 1. Quantifying success after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.
    Nieboer MJ; Hao KA; Tams C; King JJ; Wright TW; Simovitch RW; Parsons M; Schoch BS
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2023 Nov; 32(11):2296-2302. PubMed ID: 37245623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quantifying success after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.
    Hao KA; Tams C; Nieboer MJ; King JJ; Wright TW; Simovitch RW; Parsons M; Schoch BS
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2023 Apr; 32(4):688-694. PubMed ID: 36681108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quantifying success after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.
    Nieboer MJ; Hao KA; Tams C; King JJ; Wright TW; Parsons M; Schoch BS; Simovitch RW
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2023 Dec; 32(12):2501-2507. PubMed ID: 37302621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Quantifying success after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.
    Hao KA; Cueto RJ; Tams C; King JJ; Wright TW; Parsons M; Schoch BS; Simovitch RW
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2023 Nov; 32(11):2303-2309. PubMed ID: 37245624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.
    Hao KA; Hones KM; O'Keefe DS; Saengchote SA; Turnbull LM; Wright JO; Wright TW; Farmer KW; Struk AM; Simovitch RW; Schoch BS; King JJ
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2024 Mar; 33(3):593-603. PubMed ID: 37778654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state.
    Hao KA; Hones KM; O'Keefe DS; Saengchote SA; Burns MQ; Wright JO; Wright TW; Farmer KW; Struk AM; Simovitch RW; Schoch BS; King JJ
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2023 Oct; 32(10):e516-e527. PubMed ID: 37178967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Stratification of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after total shoulder arthroplasty by implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex.
    Simovitch RW; Elwell J; Colasanti CA; Hao KA; Friedman RJ; Flurin PH; Wright TW; Schoch BS; Roche CP; Zuckerman JD
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2024 Sep; 33(9):e492-e506. PubMed ID: 38461936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Validation of a machine learning-derived clinical metric to quantify outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty.
    Roche C; Kumar V; Overman S; Simovitch R; Flurin PH; Wright T; Routman H; Teredesai A; Zuckerman J
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2021 Oct; 30(10):2211-2224. PubMed ID: 33607333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Characteristics of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty patients who achieve ceiling scores with 3 common patient-reported outcome measures.
    Schoch BS; King JJ; Fan W; Flurin PH; Wright TW; Zuckerman JD; Roche CP
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2022 Aug; 31(8):1647-1657. PubMed ID: 35247571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Exactech Equinoxe anatomic versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: case controlled comparisons using the machine learning-derived Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score.
    Marigi EM; Hao KA; Friedman RJ; Greene AT; Roche CP; Wright TW; King JJ; Schoch BS
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2023 Apr; 32(4):793-802. PubMed ID: 39292145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. What Is the Accuracy of Three Different Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Clinical Outcomes After Shoulder Arthroplasty?
    Kumar V; Roche C; Overman S; Simovitch R; Flurin PH; Wright T; Zuckerman J; Routman H; Teredesai A
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2020 Oct; 478(10):2351-2363. PubMed ID: 32332242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Does achieving clinically important thresholds after first shoulder arthroplasty predict similar outcomes of the contralateral shoulder?
    Turnbull LM; Hao KA; Srinivasan RC; Wright JO; Wright TW; Farmer KW; Vasilopoulos T; Struk AM; Schoch BS; King JJ
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2024 Apr; 33(4):880-887. PubMed ID: 37690587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Are Age and Patient Gender Associated With Different Rates and Magnitudes of Clinical Improvement After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty?
    Friedman RJ; Cheung EV; Flurin PH; Wright T; Simovitch RW; Bolch C; Roche CP; Zuckerman JD
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2018 Jun; 476(6):1264-1273. PubMed ID: 29601384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference.
    Simovitch R; Flurin PH; Wright T; Zuckerman JD; Roche CP
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2018 Feb; 27(2):298-305. PubMed ID: 29162305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. What Change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score Represents a Clinically Important Change After Shoulder Arthroplasty?
    Werner BC; Chang B; Nguyen JT; Dines DM; Gulotta LV
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2016 Dec; 474(12):2672-2681. PubMed ID: 27392769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The minimal clinically important differences of the Simple Shoulder Test are different for different arthroplasty types.
    McLaughlin RJ; Whitson AJ; Panebianco A; Warme WJ; Matsen FA; Hsu JE
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2022 Aug; 31(8):1640-1646. PubMed ID: 35318157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Predicting outstanding results after reverse shoulder arthroplasty using percentage of maximal outcome improvement.
    DeVito P; Damodar D; Berglund D; Vakharia R; Moeller EA; Giveans MR; Horn B; Malarkey A; Levy JC
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2019 Jul; 28(7):1223-1231. PubMed ID: 30910258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Does improved external rotation following reverse shoulder arthroplasty impact clinical outcomes in patients with rotator cuff pathology and external rotation less than 0°?
    Haidamous G; Cabarcas B; Ohanisian L; Simon P; Christmas KN; Wilder L; Achors K; Mighell MA; Frankle MA
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2023 Jan; 32(1):68-75. PubMed ID: 35931335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The variability of MCID, SCB, PASS, and MOI thresholds for PROMs in the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty literature: a systematic review.
    Yendluri A; Alexanian A; Lee AC; Megafu MN; Levine WN; Parsons BO; Kelly JD; Parisien RL;
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2024 Oct; 33(10):2320-2332. PubMed ID: 38754543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart Score Correlates Well With Legacy Outcome Scores Without a Ceiling Effect.
    King JJ; Wright L; Hao KA; Roche C; Wright TW; Vasilopoulos T; Zuckerman JD; Flurin PH; Schoch BS
    J Am Acad Orthop Surg; 2023 Jan; 31(2):97-105. PubMed ID: 36580051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.