Literature DB >> 31335605

Which Is the Best Outcome Measure for Rotator Cuff Tears?

Dominique I Dabija1, Jacquelyn S Pennings, Kristin R Archer, Gregory D Ayers, Laurence D Higgins, John E Kuhn, Keith M Baumgarten, Elizabeth Matzkin, Nitin B Jain.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Form (ASES), the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and the shortened Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (quickDASH) are patient-reported upper extremity-specific outcome scales currently used to evaluate patients with rotator cuff tears. This heterogeneity does not allow for a uniform metric for research and patient care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Our objective was to determine psychometric properties (reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness) of five commonly used outcome instruments (the ASES, the SPADI, the quickDASH, the SF-12, and the EuroQol-5D) in a longitudinal study of patients undergoing treatment for rotator cuff tears.
METHODS: From February 2011 through June 2015, 120 patients completed a standardized history, the five outcome scales under study, a physical examination, and an MRI. Of these, 47 (39%) were lost to followup before 18 months, and another 24 (20%) were accounted for at 18 months but had missing data at one or more of the earlier prespecified followup intervals (3, 6, or 12 months). Reliability (the reproducibility of an outcome instrument between subjects; tested by Cronbach's alpha), convergent and discriminant validity (determining which outcome measures correlate most strongly with others; tested by Spearman's correlation coefficients), and responsiveness (the change in outcome scales over time based on percent improvement in shoulder functionality using the minimal clinically important difference [MCID] and the subjective shoulder value) were calculated.
RESULTS: All outcomes measures had a Cronbach's alpha above 0.70 (range, 0.74-0.94) and therefore were considered reliable. Convergent validity was demonstrated as the upper extremity-specific measures (SPADI, ASES, and quickDASH) were more strongly correlated with each other (rho = 0.74-0.81; p < 0.001) than with any of the other measures. Discriminant validity was demonstrated because the Spearman's correlation coefficients were stronger for the relationships between upper extremity measures compared with the correlations between upper extremity measures and general health measures for 53 of the 54 correlations that were compared. Both internal and external responsiveness of the measures was supported. Patients who achieved the MCID and at least a 30% change on the subjective shoulder value had more positive change in scores over time compared with those who did not. Mixed model linear regressions revealed that all three upper extremity-specific measures had a group by time interaction for the MCID, indicating that patients who achieved the MCID had greater change over time compared with those who did not achieve the MCID. Results showed that the measure with the best discrimination between groups, or best internal responsiveness, was the ASES (beta = -8.26, 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.39 to -5.14; p < 0.001; η = 0.089) followed by the SPADI (beta = 6.88, 95% CI, 3.78-9.97; p < 0.001; η = 0.088) then the quickDASH (beta = 3.43, 95% CI, 0.86-6.01; p = 0.009, η = 0.027). Measures with the best external responsiveness followed the same pattern of results.
CONCLUSIONS: All the upper extremity-specific scales had acceptable psychometric properties. Correlations were high and thus only one upper extremity-specific instrument is needed for outcome assessment. Given the overall psychometric assessment, we recommend SPADI be the shoulder-specific instrument used to assess outcomes in patients with rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31335605      PMCID: PMC7000030          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000800

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  29 in total

Review 1.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.

Authors:  D T CAMPBELL; D W FISKE
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1959-03       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  What Change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score Represents a Clinically Important Change After Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Brian C Werner; Brenda Chang; Joseph T Nguyen; David M Dines; Lawrence V Gulotta
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Assessing validity of the QuickDASH and SF-12 as surveillance tools among workers with neck or upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders.

Authors:  Z Joyce Fan; Caroline K Smith; Barbara A Silverstein
Journal:  J Hand Ther       Date:  2008 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.950

6.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.

Authors:  J Ware; M Kosinski; S D Keller
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Comparison of the University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale and the Simple Shoulder Test with the shoulder pain and disability index: single-administration reliability and validity.

Authors:  T S Roddey; S L Olson; K F Cook; G M Gartsman; W Hanten
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2000-08

8.  Preoperative patient-reported scores can predict postoperative outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Stephanie E Wong; Alan L Zhang; Jonathan L Berliner; C Benjamin Ma; Brian T Feeley
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.019

9.  Measuring shoulder function with the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index.

Authors:  J W Williams; D R Holleman; D L Simel
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.666

10.  Agreement, reliability and validity in 3 shoulder questionnaires in patients with rotator cuff disease.

Authors:  Ole M Ekeberg; Erik Bautz-Holter; Einar K Tveitå; Anne Keller; Niels G Juel; Jens I Brox
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  3 in total

1.  Longitudinal efficacy of acellular dermal allograft following superior capsular reconstruction of irreparable rotator cuff tears.

Authors:  Elliot D K Cha; Kelly Shultz; Kelley Chan; Joseph Choi
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-06-23

2.  Measuring outcomes in rotator cuff disorders.

Authors:  Aditya Prinja; Sanjeeve Sabharwal; Sebastian Moshtael; Paola Dey; Puneet Monga
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-05-21

Review 3.  How to Assess Shoulder Functionality: A Systematic Review of Existing Validated Outcome Measures.

Authors:  Rocio Aldon-Villegas; Carmen Ridao-Fernández; Dolores Torres-Enamorado; Gema Chamorro-Moriana
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.