Ilija Ban1, Anders Troelsen2, Morten Tange Kristensen3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: Ilija.ban@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Research-Copenhagen, Department of Physical Therapy, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Constant score (CS) has been the primary endpoint in most studies on clavicle fractures. However, the CS was not developed to assess patients with clavicle fractures. Our aim was to examine inter-rater reliability and agreement of the CS in patients with clavicle fractures. The secondary aim was to estimate the correlation between the CS and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score and the internal consistency of the 2 scores. METHODS: On the basis of sample sizing, 36 patients (31 male and 5 female patients; mean age, 41.3 years) with clavicle fractures underwent standardized CS assessment at a mean of 6.8 weeks (SD, 1.0 weeks) after injury. Reliability and agreement of the CS were determined by 2 raters. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change, Cronbach α coefficient, and Pearson correlation coefficient were estimated. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability of the total CS was excellent (interclass correlation coefficient, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.97), with no systematic difference between the 2 raters (P = .75). The standard error of measurement (measurement error at the group level) was 4.9, whereas the minimal detectable change (smallest change needed to indicate a real change for an individual) was 13.6 CS points. The internal consistency of the 10 CS items was good, with a Cronbach α of .85, and we found a strong correlation (r = -0.92) between the CS and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score. CONCLUSIONS: The CS was found to be reliable for assessing patients with clavicle fractures, especially at the group level. With high inter-rater reliability and agreement, in addition to good internal consistency, the standardized CS used in this study can be used for comparison of results from different settings.
BACKGROUND: The Constant score (CS) has been the primary endpoint in most studies on clavicle fractures. However, the CS was not developed to assess patients with clavicle fractures. Our aim was to examine inter-rater reliability and agreement of the CS in patients with clavicle fractures. The secondary aim was to estimate the correlation between the CS and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score and the internal consistency of the 2 scores. METHODS: On the basis of sample sizing, 36 patients (31 male and 5 female patients; mean age, 41.3 years) with clavicle fractures underwent standardized CS assessment at a mean of 6.8 weeks (SD, 1.0 weeks) after injury. Reliability and agreement of the CS were determined by 2 raters. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change, Cronbach α coefficient, and Pearson correlation coefficient were estimated. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability of the total CS was excellent (interclass correlation coefficient, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.97), with no systematic difference between the 2 raters (P = .75). The standard error of measurement (measurement error at the group level) was 4.9, whereas the minimal detectable change (smallest change needed to indicate a real change for an individual) was 13.6 CS points. The internal consistency of the 10 CS items was good, with a Cronbach α of .85, and we found a strong correlation (r = -0.92) between the CS and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score. CONCLUSIONS: The CS was found to be reliable for assessing patients with clavicle fractures, especially at the group level. With high inter-rater reliability and agreement, in addition to good internal consistency, the standardized CS used in this study can be used for comparison of results from different settings.
Authors: Patrick Ziegler; Luise Kühle; Ulrich Stöckle; Elke Wintermeyer; Laura E Stollhof; Christoph Ihle; Christian Bahrs Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Jan K G Louwerens; Michel P J van den Bekerom; Barend J van Royen; Denise Eygendaal; Arthur van Noort; Inger N Sierevelt Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-06-06