F Fayad1, Y Mace, M M Lefevre-Colau. 1. Service de rééducation et de réadaptation de l'appareil locomoteur et des pathologies du rachis, hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, université René-Descartes, 75014 Paris, France. fouad.fayad@cch.aphp.fr
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify all available shoulder disability questionnaires designed to measure physical functioning and to examine those with satisfactory clinimetric quality. METHODS: We used the Medline database and the "Guide des outils de mesure de l'évaluation en médecine physique et de réadaptation" textbook to search for questionnaires. Analysis took into account the development methodology, clinimetric quality of the instruments and frequency of their utilization. We classified the instruments according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. RESULTS: Thirty-eight instruments have been developed to measure disease-, shoulder- or upper extremity-specific outcome. Four scales assess upper-extremity disability and 3 others shoulder disability. We found 6 scales evaluating disability and shoulder pain, 7 scales measuring the quality of life in patients with various conditions of the shoulder, 14 scales combining objective and subjective measures, 2 pain scales and 2 unclassified scales. Older instruments developed before the advent of modern measurement development methodology usually combine objective and subjective measures. Recent instruments were designed with appropriate methodology. Most are self-administered questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Numerous shoulder outcome measure instruments are available. There is no "gold standard" for assessing shoulder function outcome in the general population.
OBJECTIVES: To identify all available shoulder disability questionnaires designed to measure physical functioning and to examine those with satisfactory clinimetric quality. METHODS: We used the Medline database and the "Guide des outils de mesure de l'évaluation en médecine physique et de réadaptation" textbook to search for questionnaires. Analysis took into account the development methodology, clinimetric quality of the instruments and frequency of their utilization. We classified the instruments according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. RESULTS: Thirty-eight instruments have been developed to measure disease-, shoulder- or upper extremity-specific outcome. Four scales assess upper-extremity disability and 3 others shoulder disability. We found 6 scales evaluating disability and shoulder pain, 7 scales measuring the quality of life in patients with various conditions of the shoulder, 14 scales combining objective and subjective measures, 2 pain scales and 2 unclassified scales. Older instruments developed before the advent of modern measurement development methodology usually combine objective and subjective measures. Recent instruments were designed with appropriate methodology. Most are self-administered questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Numerous shoulder outcome measure instruments are available. There is no "gold standard" for assessing shoulder function outcome in the general population.
Authors: Florian Schmidutz; Marc Beirer; Volker Braunstein; Viktoria Bogner; Ernst Wiedemann; Peter Biberthaler Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2012-05-18
Authors: Rodrigo Py Gonçalves Barreto; Marcus Levi Lopes Barbosa; Marcos Alencar Abaide Balbinotti; Fernando Carlos Mothes; Luís Henrique Telles da Rosa; Marcelo Faria Silva Journal: Rev Bras Ortop Date: 2016-10-26
Authors: M Thoomes-de Graaf; G G M Scholten-Peeters; J M Schellingerhout; A M Bourne; R Buchbinder; M Koehorst; C B Terwee; A P Verhagen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 4.147