PURPOSE: Existing patient self-reported shoulder scoring systems fail to express physicians' points of view, and understanding the wording can sometimes lead to confusion in Easterners. We sought to develop a valid, reliable, and responsive shoulder scoring system that combines the points of view of physicians and patients and is easily understood for worldwide applicability. METHODS: Six steps were followed to develop the scale: (1) investigation, identification of a specific population, and patient and physician interviews; (2) item generation, according to existing shoulder scales, a literature review, and patient and physician interviews; (3) item reduction, by combining and adjusting items; (4) formatting of the questionnaire, designed using both subjective and objective scales, with a 100-point score range; (5) pretesting, to eliminate confusion and misunderstanding of items, and (6) preliminary evaluation. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess validity (compared with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant-Murley, and University of California, Los Angeles scores), intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess reliability (with a 2-week test-retest interval), and the standardized response mean was calculated to assess responsiveness (comparing preoperative and postoperative scores in patients). RESULTS: The final scoring system was designed to have a 100-point score range, with higher scores indicating better function. It consisted of self-report assessment by patients (61 points in total) and objective assessment by physicians (39 points in total). Updated scales, including a night pain subscale, patient-physician satisfaction, and 2-dimensional visual analog scale tool, were incorporated in our system. Compared with the other 3 scoring systems (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant-Murley, and University of California, Los Angeles scores), the new scoring system has shown favorable validity, with a Pearson correlation coefficient greater than 0.7. In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was greater than 0.9 during a 2-week test-retest interval, indicating high reliability, and the standardized response mean of the new system was greater than that of the other 3 scoring systems, indicating sensitive responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A new shoulder scoring system has been developed based on patients' and physicians' points of view and worldwide applicability and was verified to be valid, reliable, and responsive. The new scoring system includes a 2-dimensional visual analog scale, night pain subscale, and patient-physician satisfaction scale, which are not included in the existing scoring systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, development of diagnostic criteria.
PURPOSE: Existing patient self-reported shoulder scoring systems fail to express physicians' points of view, and understanding the wording can sometimes lead to confusion in Easterners. We sought to develop a valid, reliable, and responsive shoulder scoring system that combines the points of view of physicians and patients and is easily understood for worldwide applicability. METHODS: Six steps were followed to develop the scale: (1) investigation, identification of a specific population, and patient and physician interviews; (2) item generation, according to existing shoulder scales, a literature review, and patient and physician interviews; (3) item reduction, by combining and adjusting items; (4) formatting of the questionnaire, designed using both subjective and objective scales, with a 100-point score range; (5) pretesting, to eliminate confusion and misunderstanding of items, and (6) preliminary evaluation. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess validity (compared with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant-Murley, and University of California, Los Angeles scores), intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess reliability (with a 2-week test-retest interval), and the standardized response mean was calculated to assess responsiveness (comparing preoperative and postoperative scores in patients). RESULTS: The final scoring system was designed to have a 100-point score range, with higher scores indicating better function. It consisted of self-report assessment by patients (61 points in total) and objective assessment by physicians (39 points in total). Updated scales, including a night pain subscale, patient-physician satisfaction, and 2-dimensional visual analog scale tool, were incorporated in our system. Compared with the other 3 scoring systems (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant-Murley, and University of California, Los Angeles scores), the new scoring system has shown favorable validity, with a Pearson correlation coefficient greater than 0.7. In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was greater than 0.9 during a 2-week test-retest interval, indicating high reliability, and the standardized response mean of the new system was greater than that of the other 3 scoring systems, indicating sensitive responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A new shoulder scoring system has been developed based on patients' and physicians' points of view and worldwide applicability and was verified to be valid, reliable, and responsive. The new scoring system includes a 2-dimensional visual analog scale, night pain subscale, and patient-physician satisfaction scale, which are not included in the existing scoring systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, development of diagnostic criteria.
Authors: Johannes M Giesinger; Nicolas Kesterke; David F Hamilton; Bernhard Holzner; Bernhard Jost; Karlmeinrad Giesinger Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 2.362