Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society (대한견·주관절의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Influence of Health Perception on Shoulder Outcome Measure Scores

  • Hardy, Richard E. (Department of Sports Medicine, Heartland Orthopedic Specialists) ;
  • Sungur, Engin (Division of Science and Mathematics, University of Minnesota Morris) ;
  • Butler, Christopher (Division of Science and Mathematics, University of Minnesota Morris) ;
  • Brand, Jefferson C. (Department of Sports Medicine, Heartland Orthopedic Specialists)
  • Received : 2019.08.07
  • Accepted : 2019.09.29
  • Published : 2019.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Patient reported outcome measures assess clinical progress from the patient's perspective. This study explored the relationship between shoulder outcome measures (The Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standard Shoulder Assessment score [ASES], and Constant score) by comparing the best possible scores obtained in an asymptomatic population compared to overall perception of health, as measured by the SF-36 outcome measure. Methods: Volunteers (age range, 20-69 years) with asymptomatic shoulders and no history of shoulder pain, injury, surgery, imaging, or pathology (bilaterally) were included. The DASH and ASES measures were completed by 111 volunteers (72 female, 39 male), of which 92 completed the Constant score (56 female, 36 male). The SF-36 was completed by all volunteers (level of evidence: IV case series). Results: The mean (${\bar{x}}$) score for ASES measure on the right shoulder was higher for the left-hand dominant side (${\bar{x}}=100.00$ vs. 95.02, p-value<0.001); no other significant differences. Better SF-36 scores were associated with better DASH scores. Our prediction models suggest that perception of overall health affects the DASH scores. Sex affected all three shoulder measures scores. Conclusions: Comparing scores of shoulder outcome measures to the highest possible score is not the most informative way to interpret patient progress. Variables such as health status, sex, and hand dominance need to be considered. Furthermore, it is possible to use these variables to predict scores of outcome measures, which facilitates the healthcare provider to deliver individualized care to their patients.

Keywords

References

  1. Clarke MG, Dewing CB, Schroder DT, Solomon DJ, Provencher MT. Normal shoulder outcome score values in the young, active adult. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):424-8. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.10.009.
  2. Chalmers PN, Verma NN. How can we improve outcomes assessment? Orthopedics. 2015;38(10):594-6. doi:10.3928/01477447-20151002-02.
  3. Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, Ketchersid J, Calfee RP. Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(4):641-9. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032.
  4. Swiontkowski MF, Buckwalter JA, Keller RB, Haralson R. The outcomes movement in orthopaedic surgery: where we are and where we should go. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81(5):732-40. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199905000-00016.
  5. Smith MV, Calfee RP, Baumgarten KM, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(3):277-85. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01744.
  6. Gartsman GM, Brinker MR, Khan M, Karahan M. Self-assessment of general health status in patients with five common shoulder conditions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(3):228-37. doi: 10.1016/S1058-2746(98)90050-7.
  7. Sallay PI, Reed L. The measurement of normative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(6):622-7. doi: 10.1016/S105827460300209X.
  8. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001;14(2):128-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1130(01)80043-0
  9. Kocher MS, Horan MP, Briggs KK, Richardson TR, O'Holleran J, Hawkins RJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):2006-11. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.C.01624.
  10. Michener LA, Leggin BG. A review of self-report scales for the assessment of functional limitation and disability of the shoulder. J Hand Ther. 2001;14(2):68-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1130(01)80036-3
  11. Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(10):1109-20. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2003.10.030.
  12. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Sojbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(2):355-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022.
  13. Ban I, Troelsen A, Christiansen DH, Svendsen SW, Kristensen MT. Standardised test protocol (Constant Score) for evaluation of functionality in patients with shoulder disorders. Dan Med J. 2013;60(4):A4608.
  14. Rocourt MH, Radlinger L, Kalberer F, et al. Evaluation of intratester and intertester reliability of the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(2):364-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.024.
  15. Yian EH, Ramappa AJ, Arneberg O, Gerber C. The Constant score in normal shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(2):128-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.07.003.
  16. Johansson KM, Adolfsson LE. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability for the strength test in the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):273-8. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.08.001.
  17. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas. 2000;60(6):821-36. doi: 10.1177/00131640021970934.
  18. Green SB. How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behav Res. 1991;26(3):499-510. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7.
  19. Katolik LI, Romeo AA, Cole BJ, Verma NN, Hayden JK, Bach BR. Normalization of the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):279-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.009.
  20. Constant CR. Age related recovery of shoulder function after injury [thesis]. Cork: University College Cork; 1986.
  21. Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, et al. Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(10):1257-67. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9409-3.
  22. Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(6):587-94. doi: 10.1067/mse.2002.127096.
  23. Elliott TE, Renier CM, Palcher JA. Chronic pain, depression, and quality of life: correlations and predictive value of the SF-36. Pain Med. 2003;4(4):331-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2003.03040.x.
  24. Bergman S, Jacobsson LT, Herrstrom P, Petersson IF. Health status as measured by SF-36 reflects changes and predicts outcome in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a 3-year follow up study in the general population. Pain. 2004;108(1-2):115-23. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2003.12.013.
  25. Dawson J, Linsell L, Zondervan K, et al. Epidemiology of hip and knee pain and its impact on overall health status in older adults. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004;43(4):497-504. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh086.