Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome Measures Following Upper Limb Trauma

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Textbook of Shoulder Surgery

  • 873 Accesses

Abstract

Outcome measurement in orthopaedics has evolved considerably in line with advances in orthopaedic care. Region and condition specific outcome measures have been developed as a means of measuring the effectiveness of treatments and interventions. Early outcome scoring systems tended to place a greater emphasis on clinimetric measures such as range of motion or radiographic appearances. As outcome scoring systems have evolved these tend to carry a greater “patient reported” component incorporating both psychosocial and physical scales.

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the importance of outcome measurement as well the rationale for selecting particular outcome measures relevant to trauma around the shoulder girdle.

A review of the literature was performed focusing on outcome measurement for injuries around the shoulder girdle. Commonly used outcome domains and scores were identified and a summary overview presented.

There are several validated outcome measures specifically designed to assess outcome following upper extremity trauma. Their appropriate use could be guided by use of the COSMIN checklist as well as consideration of the questionnaire burden for study participants so as to maximise questionnaire return rates and the validity of results.

Not everything that can be counted counts and not

everything that counts can be counted – Albert Einstein

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Jayakumar P, Williams M, Ring D, Lamb S, Gwilym S. A systematic review of outcome measures assessing disability following upper extremity trauma. JAAOS Global Res Rev. 2017;1(4):e021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nota SPFT, Bot AGJ, Ring D, Kloen P. Disability and depression after orthopaedic trauma. Injury. 2015;46(2):207–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Levin PE, MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, Greenhouse PK. Improving outcomes: understanding the psychosocial aspects of the orthopaedic trauma patient. Instr Course Lect. 2014;63:39–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Beeck EF, Larsen CF, Lyons RA, Meerding W-J, Mulder S, Essink-Bot M-L. Guidelines for the conduction of follow-up studies measuring injury-related disability. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2007;62(2):534–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. de Putter CE, Selles RW, Haagsma JA, Polinder S, Panneman MJM, Hovius SER, et al. Health-related quality of life after upper extremity injuries and predictors for suboptimal outcome. Injury. 2014;45(11):1752–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Slobogean GP, Noonan VK, Famuyide A, O’Brien PJ. Does objective shoulder impairment explain patient-reported functional outcome? A study of proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20(2):267–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rothrock NE, Kaiser KA, Cella D. Developing a valid patient-reported outcome measure. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90(5):737–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49. http://www.cosmin.nl/images/upload/files/COSMIN%20checklist%20manual%20v9.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2018.

  9. Diehr P, Chen L, Patrick D, Feng Z, Yasui Y. Reliability, effect size, and responsiveness of health status measures in the design of randomized and cluster-randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26(1):45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Snyder CF, Watson ME, Jackson JD, Cella D, Halyard MY, Mayo FDAP-ROCMG. Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy. Value Health. 2007;10:S76–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McLeod LD, Coon CD, Martin SA, Fehnel SE, Hays RD. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):163–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. The COMET initiative website: http://www.comet-initiative.org/. Accessed 26 Jan 2018.

  14. Emery M-P, Perrier L-L, Acquadro C. Patient-reported outcome and quality of life instruments database (PROQOLID): frequently asked questions. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14):i-iv, 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S. The picker patient experience questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14(5):353–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nord E. Cost-value analysis in health care: making sense out of QALYs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(4):593–600.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C, Beaton D, Cole D, Davis A, et al. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN; Upper Extremity Collaborative G. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. JBJS. 2005;87(5):1038–46.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Constant CR, Murley AG. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:160–4.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lippitt SB, Harryman DT, Matsen FA, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ. A practical tool for evaluating function: the simple shoulder test. In: The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stability. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1993. p. 501–18.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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 Elb Surg. 2002;11(6):587–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Charles ER, Kumar V, Blacknall J, Edwards K, Geoghegan JM, Manning PA, et al. A validation of the Nottingham Clavicle Score: a clavicle, acromioclavicular joint and sternoclavicular joint-specific patient-reported outcome measure. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26(10):1732–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Imatani RJ, Hanlon JJ, Cady GW. Acute, complete acromioclavicular separation. JBJS. 1975;57(3):328–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D, Lawrence K, Petersen S, Paice C, et al. A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? J Public Health. 1997;19(2):179–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Group TE. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK

    Ramsay Refaie & Amar Rangan

  2. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Amar Rangan

  3. University of York, York, UK

    Amar Rangan

Authors
  1. Ramsay Refaie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amar Rangan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, Lancashire, UK

    Ian A. Trail

  2. Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, Lancashire, UK

    Lennard Funk

  3. Orthopaedic Surgery Department, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire, UK

    Amar Rangan

  4. Trauma & Orthopaedics Department, Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester, Cheshire, UK

    Matthew Nixon

Appendix

Appendix

Examples of frequently used scores for outcome evaluation following shoulder trauma

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d
figure e
figure f
figure g
figure h
figure i
figure j
figure k
figure l
figure m

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Refaie, R., Rangan, A. (2019). Outcome Measures Following Upper Limb Trauma. In: Trail, I., Funk, L., Rangan, A., Nixon, M. (eds) Textbook of Shoulder Surgery . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70099-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70099-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70098-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70099-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation