The combined shoulder assessment: a convenient method for obtaining equivalent outcome scores

Abstract

Background

Outcome scores are useful tools with respect to quantifying how pain and limitations in strength and movement affect the patient’s functionality and lifestyle. Three shoulder outcome methods [Oxford, Constant and QuickDASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand)] are commonly used in practice but collectively consist of 34 questions, taking approximately 7 min to complete. We have developed a concise shoulder assessment to derive three equivalent outcome scores in a 12-item patient-reporting questionnaire.

Methods

Outcome scores from 1285 outpatients of an upper limb clinic were collected. The patient cohort consisted of 462 females and 823 males with a mean (SD) age of 47.2 (16.79) years (range 13 years to 90 years). Using a correlation matrix, a 12-item questionnaire was drafted. The combined shoulder assessment was validated by 227 patients; consisting of 101 females and 126 males with a mean (SD) age of 47.91 (16.63) years (range 13 years to 88 years).

Results

Agreement was achieved between the two methods, with an equivalent Oxford Shoulder Score intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.930, equivalent Constant Shoulder Score ICC of 0.942 and equivalent QuickDASH ICC of 0.869. Bland–Altman analyses showed no systematic differences. Large effect sizes highlighted the responsiveness to change.

Conclusions

The new combined shoulder assessment is a more convenient and patient-friendly method to obtain equivalent Oxford, Constant and QuickDASH shoulder outcome scores.

Keywords

equivalent Constant Shoulder Score equivalent QuickDASH equivalent Oxford Shoulder Score outcome scores shoulder

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wylie

Beckmann

Granger

Tashjian

. Functional outcomes assessment in shoulder surgery. World J Orthop 2014; 5: 623–633.

Constant

Murley

. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 214: 160–164.

Dawson

Fitzpatrick

Carr

. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 593–600.

Hudak

Amadio

Bombardier

. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602–608.

Booker

Alfahad

Scott

Gooding

Wallace

. Use of scoring systems for assessing and reporting the outcome results from shoulder surgery and arthroplasty. World J Orthop 2015; 6: 244–251.

Noorani

Roberts

Malone

et al.

Validation of the Stanmore percentage of normal shoulder assessment. Int J Shoulder Surg 2012; 6: 9–14.

Gabel

Michener

Burkett

Neller

. The Upper Limb Functional Index: development and determination of reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Hand Ther 2006; 19: 328–348.

Provencher

Frank

Macian

et al.

An analysis of shoulder outcomes scores in 275 consecutive patients: disease-specific correlation across multiple shoulder conditions. Mil Med 2012; 177: 975–982.

Razmjou

Bean

MacDermid

van Osnabrugge

Travers

Holtby

. Convergent validity of the Constant-Murley outcome measure in patients with rotator cuff disease. Physiotherapy Canada 2008; 60: 72–79.

10.

Placzek

Lukens

Badalanmenti

Rouba

Freeman

Wiater

. Shoulder outcome measures. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32: 1270–1277.

11.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.

12.

Cronbach

. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334.

13.

Nunnally

Bernstein

. Psychometric theory, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

14.

de Vet

Terwee

Knol

Bouter

. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1033–1039.

15.

Rankin

Stokes

. Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clin Rehabil 1998; 12: 187–199.

16.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307–110.

17.

Lohr

Aaronson

Alonso

et al.

Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 979–992.

18.

Kane

Outcome measures. In: Kane

(ed). Understanding health care outcomes research, Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers, 1997, pp. 17–18.

19.

Williams

Gangel

Arciero

Uhorchak

Taylor

. Comparison of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27: 214–221.

20.

Berendes

Pilot

Willems

et al.

Validation of the Dutch version of the Oxford Shoulder Score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19: 829–836.

21.

Murena

Vulcano

D’Angelo

et al.

Italian cross-cultural adaption and validation of the Oxford shoulder score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19: 335–341.

22.

Wiertsema

Rietberg

Hekman

Schothorst

Steultjens

Dekker

. Reproducibility of the Dutch version of the Western Ontario rotator cuff Index. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: 165–170.

23.

Christiansen

Frost

Falla

Haahr

Frich

Svendsen

. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important change: a comparison between 2 shoulder outcome measures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2015; 45: 620–625.

24.

Franchignoni

Vercelli

Giordano

Sartorio

Bravini

Ferriero

. Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014; 44: 30–39.

25.

Miranda

Gold

Gore

Punnett

. Recall of prior musculoskeletal pain. Scand J Work Environ Health 2006; 32: 294–300.

26.

Tyler

Singh

. 2 weeks after an arthroscopic shoulder procedure patients have forgotten their pre-operative symptoms. Shoulder Elbow 2015; 7: 309–332.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB