PURPOSE: In our study we explored the need to define a core outcome set for primary frozen shoulder. METHODS: We investigated the outcomes used by studies included in a systematic review of the management of primary frozen shoulder; surveyed which primary outcome measures health care professionals considered important; and re-examined papers previously obtained for a systematic review of patients' views of interventions for frozen shoulder to investigate their views on outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies investigated the outcomes range of movement (28 studies), pain (22), function and disability (22), adverse events (13), quality of life (7) and other outcomes (5). Many different types of pain and ranges of movement were measured. Function and disability was measured using fifteen instruments, the content of which varied considerably. Function and disability, pain and range of movement (132, 108 and 104 respondents, respectively) were most often cited by health care professionals as the primary outcome measure that should be used. Searches identified one paper that included patients' views. Outcomes of importance to patients were pain at night, general pain, reduced mobility (resulting in modification of activities) and the emotional impact of frozen shoulder. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a diverse range of outcomes that have been used or are considered to be important. The development of a core outcome set would improve the design and reporting of studies and availability of data for evidence synthesis. Methods used to develop a core outcome set should be robust, transparent and reflect the views of all stakeholders.
PURPOSE: In our study we explored the need to define a core outcome set for primary frozen shoulder. METHODS: We investigated the outcomes used by studies included in a systematic review of the management of primary frozen shoulder; surveyed which primary outcome measures health care professionals considered important; and re-examined papers previously obtained for a systematic review of patients' views of interventions for frozen shoulder to investigate their views on outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies investigated the outcomes range of movement (28 studies), pain (22), function and disability (22), adverse events (13), quality of life (7) and other outcomes (5). Many different types of pain and ranges of movement were measured. Function and disability was measured using fifteen instruments, the content of which varied considerably. Function and disability, pain and range of movement (132, 108 and 104 respondents, respectively) were most often cited by health care professionals as the primary outcome measure that should be used. Searches identified one paper that included patients' views. Outcomes of importance to patients were pain at night, general pain, reduced mobility (resulting in modification of activities) and the emotional impact of frozen shoulder. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a diverse range of outcomes that have been used or are considered to be important. The development of a core outcome set would improve the design and reporting of studies and availability of data for evidence synthesis. Methods used to develop a core outcome set should be robust, transparent and reflect the views of all stakeholders.
Authors: Jorma Kivimäki; Timo Pohjolainen; Antti Malmivaara; Mikko Kannisto; Jacques Guillaume; Seppo Seitsalo; Maunu Nissinen Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: E Maund; D Craig; S Suekarran; Ar Neilson; K Wright; S Brealey; L Dennis; L Goodchild; N Hanchard; A Rangan; G Richardson; J Robertson; C McDaid Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Jane M Blazeby; Mike Clarke; Declan Devane; Elizabeth Gargon; Peter Tugwell Journal: Trials Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Sally E Green; Dorcas E Beaton; Nitin B Jain; Mario Lenza; Arianne P Verhagen; Stephen Surace; Jessica Deitch; Rachelle Buchbinder Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jean-Baptiste Beuscart; Lisa G Pont; Stefanie Thevelin; Benoit Boland; Olivia Dalleur; Anne W S Rutjes; Johanna I Westbrook; Anne Spinewine Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Stephen Brealey; Matthew Northgraves; Lucksy Kottam; Ada Keding; Belen Corbacho; Lorna Goodchild; Cynthia Srikesavan; Saleema Rex; Charalambos P Charalambous; Nigel Hanchard; Alison Armstrong; Andrew Brooksbank; Andrew Carr; Cushla Cooper; Joseph Dias; Iona Donnelly; Catherine Hewitt; Sarah E Lamb; Catriona McDaid; Gerry Richardson; Sara Rodgers; Emma Sharp; Sally Spencer; David Torgerson; Francine Toye; Amar Rangan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: A Rosala-Hallas; Ashley P Jones; Paula R Williamson; Emma Bedson; Vanessa Compton; Ricardo M Fernandes; David Lacy; Mark David Lyttle; Matthew Peak; Kentigern Thorburn; Kerry Woolfall; Clare Van Miert; Paul S McNamara Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mattia Salomon; Chiara Pastore; Filippo Maselli; Mauro Di Bari; Raffaello Pellegrino; Fabrizio Brindisino Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-07 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Angus G K McNair; Robert N Whistance; Rachael O Forsythe; Rhiannon Macefield; Jonathan Rees; Anne M Pullyblank; Kerry N L Avery; Sara T Brookes; Michael G Thomas; Paul A Sylvester; Ann Russell; Alfred Oliver; Dion Morton; Robin Kennedy; David G Jayne; Richard Huxtable; Roland Hackett; Susan J Dutton; Mark G Coleman; Mia Card; Julia Brown; Jane M Blazeby Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 11.069