Literature DB >> 25350180

The use of shoulder scoring systems and outcome measures in the UK.

M Varghese1, J Lamb, R Rambani, B Venkateswaran.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In future, outcomes following shoulder surgery may be subject to public survey. Many outcome measures exist but we do not know whether there is a consensus between shoulder surgeons in the UK. The aim of this study was to survey the preferred outcome measures used by National Health Service (NHS) shoulder surgeons operating in the UK.
METHODS: A total of 350 shoulder surgeons working in NHS hospitals were asked to complete a short written questionnaire regarding their use of scoring systems and outcome measures. Questionnaires were sent and responses were received by post.
RESULTS: Overall, 217 responses were received (62%). Of the respondents, 171 (79%) use an outcome measure in their shoulder practice while 46 (21%) do not. There were 118 surgeons (69%) who use more than one outcome measure. The Oxford shoulder score was most commonly used by 150 surgeons (69%), followed by the Constant score with 106 (49%), the Oxford shoulder instability score with 82 (38%), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score with 54 (25%). The less commonly used outcome measures were the SF-36® and SF-12® health questionnaires with 19 (9%), the University of California at Los Angeles activity score with 8 (4%), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder assessment form with 8 (4%) and the EQ-5D™ with 10 (3%). Conclusions Validated outcome measures should be adopted by all practising surgeons in all specialties. This will allow better assessment of treatments in addition to assessment of surgical performance in a transparent way.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25350180      PMCID: PMC4474099          DOI: 10.1308/003588414X14055925058157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  10 in total

1.  Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total shoulder arthroplasty: usefulness and validity of subjective outcome measures.

Authors:  Felix Angst; Géza Pap; Anne F Mannion; Daniel B Herren; André Aeschlimann; Hans-Kaspar Schwyzer; Beat R Simmen
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2004-10-15

2.  A comparison of the Constant and Oxford shoulder scores in patients with conservatively treated proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Paul Baker; Rajesh Nanda; Lorna Goodchild; Paul Finn; Amar Rangan
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2007-11-26       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  The Oxford shoulder score revisited.

Authors:  Jill Dawson; Katherine Rogers; Ray Fitzpatrick; Andrew Carr
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 4.  Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI).

Authors:  Felix Angst; Hans-Kaspar Schwyzer; André Aeschlimann; Beat R Simmen; Jörg Goldhahn
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.794

Review 5.  Analysis of evidence-based medicine for shoulder instability.

Authors:  Kevin D Plancher; Sheryl L Lipnick
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 6.  Shoulder outcomes measures.

Authors:  Rick W Wright; Keith M Baumgarten
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.020

7.  Validity assessment of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH) for patients with psoriatic arthritis.

Authors:  A Navsarikar; D D Gladman; J A Husted; R J Cook
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.666

8.  Is the constant score reliable in assessing patients with frozen shoulder? 60 shoulders scored 3 years after manipulation under anaesthesia.

Authors:  Ahmed Othman; Geoffrey Taylor
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2004-02

9.  The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index demonstrates factor, construct and longitudinal validity.

Authors:  Joy C MacDermid; Patty Solomon; Kenneth Prkachin
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-02-10       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument.

Authors:  Jeff Richardson; Angelo Iezzi; Munir A Khan; Aimee Maxwell
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

  10 in total
  5 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of cross-cultural adaptations of patient-reported shoulder outcome measures in Spanish: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sara Gómez-Valero; Fernando García-Pérez; Mariano Tomás Flórez-García; Juan Carlos Miangolarra-Page
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2017-02-17

2.  Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Oxford Shoulder Score, EQ-5D, and the Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire Physical Activity subscale in patients undergoing arthroscopic subacromial decompression.

Authors:  Lotte Sørensen; Maurits van Tulder; Hans V Johannsen; Janne Ovesen; Lisa G Oestergaard
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-07-09

3.  Wrist-mounted accelerometers provide objective evidence of disease and recovery in patients with frozen shoulder.

Authors:  Samuel P Mackenzie; Michael McLean; Miloš Spasojevic; Rui Niu; Lisa Kruse; Jasmin Gwynne; Allan Young; Benjamin Cass
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-11-13

4.  Diagnostic Value of Frequently Implemented Provocative Tests in the Assessment of Shoulder Pain-A Glimpse of Current Practice.

Authors:  Nahum Rosenberg
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 2.430

5.  The use of a synthetic shoulder patch for large and massive rotator cuff tears - a feasibility study.

Authors:  P Cowling; R Hackney; B Dube; A J Grainger; J D Biglands; M Stanley; D Song; P G Conaghan; S R Kingsbury
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-04-07       Impact factor: 2.562

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.