Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
To assess the responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) using anchor- and distribution-based approaches.
A prospective observational study of 104 patients undergoing elbow surgery at a specialist orthopaedic hospital was carried out. Patients completed the OES and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaires (both scored on a 0 to 100 scale) pre- and 6 months post-surgery. Transition items (used as anchors) assessed perceived changes following surgery. Indicators of responsiveness were the effect size; the anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and best cut-point on the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve; and the distribution-based minimal detectable change (MDC).
The three elbow-specific OES scales (Function, Pain, Social-Psychological) produced generally larger effect sizes (0.79, 1.14 and 1.18, respectively) than the upper-limb-specific DASH scale (0.76). Clear associations were observed between transition items and all OES and DASH scores (all r > |0.35|). The MCIDs for the OES Function scale and the DASH were similar (≈10), but were larger for the OES Pain and Social-Psychological scales (≈18), reflecting their lower (i.e. poorer) baseline scores and larger effect sizes. The MCIDs were, however, only consistently larger than the MDCs for the OES Pain domain. The OES Function scale and the DASH performed similarly on ROC analysis, but with the OES Pain and Social-Psychological scales demonstrating superior efficiency.
For elbow surgery, the 12-item three-scale OES is highly responsive to 6-month post-operative outcomes, with its performance being generally better than that of the 30-item one-scale DASH. Study estimates of minimal change for the OES may be useful for informing sample size calculations and interpreting outcomes in future clinical trials.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Pynsent, P., Fairbank, J. C. T., & Carr, A. (1993). Outcome measures in orthopaedics. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Murray, D., & Carr, A. (1996). The problem of ‘noise’ in monitoring patient-based outcomes: generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 1, 224–231.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Carr, A., & Murray, D. (1996). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 78, 185–190. PubMed
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., & Carr, A. (1996). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 78, 593–600. PubMed
Khan, F., Ng, L., Gonzalez, S., Hale, T., & Turner-Stokes, L. (2008). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes following joint replacement at the hip and knee in chronic arthropathy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online : Update Software), 2:CD004957. Review.
Canterbury District Health Board (DHB) (2007) New Zealand National Joint Register. Home page at: http://www.cdhb.govt.nz/NJR/. Canterbury DHB, New Zealand.
Hudak, P. L., Amadio, P. C., & Bombardier, C. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29, 602–608. Published erratum appears in Am J Ind Med 1996 Sep;30(3):372. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L. PubMedCrossRef
Overend, T. J., Wuori-Fearn, J. L., Kramer, J. F., & MacDermid, J. C. (1999). Reliability of a patient-rated forearm evaluation questionnaire for patients with lateral epicondylitis. Journal of Hand Therapy, 12, 31–37. PubMed
Dawson, J., Doll, H., Boller, I., Fitzpatrick, R., Little, C., Rees, J., et al. (2008). The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 90, 466–473. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B4.20290. PubMedCrossRef
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley.
de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Ostelo, R. W., Beckerman, H., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 54. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-54. PubMedCrossRef
SPSS Inc. (2007) SPSS statistical software: release 15.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
StataCorp. (2007). Stata statistical software: release 10. College Station, TX: StataCorp.
Cohen, J. (1997). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic derived curves from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839–843. PubMed
Riddle, D. L., Stratford, P. W., & Binkley, J. M. (1998). Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Physical Therapy, 78, 1197–1207. PubMed
Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J. M., & Riddle, D. L. (1996). Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Physical Therapy, 76, 1109–1123. PubMed
Beaton, D. E., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., Wright, J. G., Tarasuk, V., & Bombardier, C. (2001). 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. Journal of Hand Therapy, 14, 128–146. PubMed
Kennedy, D. M., Stratford, P. W., Wessel, J., Gollish, J. D., & Penney, D. (2005). Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 6, 3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-6-3. PubMedCrossRef
Sloan, J., Symonds, T., Vargas-Chanes, D., & Fridley, B. (2003). Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Information Journal, 37, 23–31.
Guyatt, G. H., Juniper, E. F., Walter, S. D., Griffith, L. E., & Goldstein, R. S. (1998). Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 316, 690–693.
- Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery
- Springer Netherlands