Shoulder outcome measures

is there a right answer?

James E. Beastall, Shona Fielding, Eva Christie, Alan J. Johnstone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose A number of outcome measures (instruments)
are used to assess shoulder pain and function in clinical
practice. No clear ‘gold standard’ exists and it is thought
that different instruments will give a different answer. Our
aim is to statistically compare four commonly used outcome
measures in a group of trauma patients and to identify
whether instruments which combine objective and
subjective components differ from those which are purely
subjective.
Methods Forty-four patients undergoing internal fixation
of proximal humeral fractures were recruited between 2003
and 2008. Each was asked to complete a number of outcome
measures: University of Los Angeles score (UCLA);
Constant and Murley score (Constant); Oxford Shoulder
Score (OSS); Quick form of the Disabilities of the Arm,
Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Each
were measured on a different scale but were standardised to
0–100 for comparison.
Results Purely subjective instruments gave higher scores
(better function and/or less pain). Statistical differences
were found between each pair of instruments (p\0.001),
except for the comparison between UCLA and QuickDASH
(p = 0.403). The study found inconsistencies between
instruments, with outcomes varying depending on whether
subjective or objective measurements were being assessed.
Conclusions Outcome measures are useful tools, but clinicians
need to be aware that their choice of instrument
should be made carefully, taking into account the reason
behind its use with regard to outcome.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)659-664
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
Volume38
Issue number6
Early online date18 Sep 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2012

Fingerprint

Arm
Hand
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Shoulder Fractures
Shoulder Pain
Los Angeles
Pain
Wounds and Injuries
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • outcome measures
  • scoring systems
  • proximal humeral fractures

Cite this

Shoulder outcome measures : is there a right answer? / Beastall, James E.; Fielding, Shona; Christie, Eva; Johnstone, Alan J.

In: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Vol. 38, No. 6, 12.2012, p. 659-664.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6b9c4d63e1b04a80b128459950cd7232,
title = "Shoulder outcome measures: is there a right answer?",
abstract = "Purpose A number of outcome measures (instruments) are used to assess shoulder pain and function in clinical practice. No clear ‘gold standard’ exists and it is thought that different instruments will give a different answer. Our aim is to statistically compare four commonly used outcome measures in a group of trauma patients and to identify whether instruments which combine objective and subjective components differ from those which are purely subjective. Methods Forty-four patients undergoing internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures were recruited between 2003 and 2008. Each was asked to complete a number of outcome measures: University of Los Angeles score (UCLA); Constant and Murley score (Constant); Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS); Quick form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Each were measured on a different scale but were standardised to 0–100 for comparison. Results Purely subjective instruments gave higher scores (better function and/or less pain). Statistical differences were found between each pair of instruments (p\0.001), except for the comparison between UCLA and QuickDASH (p = 0.403). The study found inconsistencies between instruments, with outcomes varying depending on whether subjective or objective measurements were being assessed. Conclusions Outcome measures are useful tools, but clinicians need to be aware that their choice of instrument should be made carefully, taking into account the reason behind its use with regard to outcome.",
keywords = "outcome measures, scoring systems, proximal humeral fractures",
author = "Beastall, {James E.} and Shona Fielding and Eva Christie and Johnstone, {Alan J.}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s00068-012-0220-z",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "659--664",
journal = "European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery",
issn = "1863-9933",
publisher = "Urban und Vogel",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shoulder outcome measures

T2 - is there a right answer?

AU - Beastall, James E.

AU - Fielding, Shona

AU - Christie, Eva

AU - Johnstone, Alan J.

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - Purpose A number of outcome measures (instruments) are used to assess shoulder pain and function in clinical practice. No clear ‘gold standard’ exists and it is thought that different instruments will give a different answer. Our aim is to statistically compare four commonly used outcome measures in a group of trauma patients and to identify whether instruments which combine objective and subjective components differ from those which are purely subjective. Methods Forty-four patients undergoing internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures were recruited between 2003 and 2008. Each was asked to complete a number of outcome measures: University of Los Angeles score (UCLA); Constant and Murley score (Constant); Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS); Quick form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Each were measured on a different scale but were standardised to 0–100 for comparison. Results Purely subjective instruments gave higher scores (better function and/or less pain). Statistical differences were found between each pair of instruments (p\0.001), except for the comparison between UCLA and QuickDASH (p = 0.403). The study found inconsistencies between instruments, with outcomes varying depending on whether subjective or objective measurements were being assessed. Conclusions Outcome measures are useful tools, but clinicians need to be aware that their choice of instrument should be made carefully, taking into account the reason behind its use with regard to outcome.

AB - Purpose A number of outcome measures (instruments) are used to assess shoulder pain and function in clinical practice. No clear ‘gold standard’ exists and it is thought that different instruments will give a different answer. Our aim is to statistically compare four commonly used outcome measures in a group of trauma patients and to identify whether instruments which combine objective and subjective components differ from those which are purely subjective. Methods Forty-four patients undergoing internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures were recruited between 2003 and 2008. Each was asked to complete a number of outcome measures: University of Los Angeles score (UCLA); Constant and Murley score (Constant); Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS); Quick form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Each were measured on a different scale but were standardised to 0–100 for comparison. Results Purely subjective instruments gave higher scores (better function and/or less pain). Statistical differences were found between each pair of instruments (p\0.001), except for the comparison between UCLA and QuickDASH (p = 0.403). The study found inconsistencies between instruments, with outcomes varying depending on whether subjective or objective measurements were being assessed. Conclusions Outcome measures are useful tools, but clinicians need to be aware that their choice of instrument should be made carefully, taking into account the reason behind its use with regard to outcome.

KW - outcome measures

KW - scoring systems

KW - proximal humeral fractures

U2 - 10.1007/s00068-012-0220-z

DO - 10.1007/s00068-012-0220-z

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 659

EP - 664

JO - European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery

JF - European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery

SN - 1863-9933

IS - 6

ER -