Advertisement

Outcome Measures Following Upper Limb Trauma

  • Ramsay Refaie
  • Amar Rangan
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nota SPFT, Bot AGJ, Ring D, Kloen P. Disability and depression after orthopaedic trauma. Injury. 2015;46(2):207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rothrock NE, Kaiser KA, Cella D. Developing a valid patient-reported outcome measure. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90(5):737–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The COMET initiative website: http://www.comet-initiative.org/. Accessed 26 Jan 2018.
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nord E. Cost-value analysis in health care: making sense out of QALYs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Imatani RJ, Hanlon JJ, Cady GW. Acute, complete acromioclavicular separation. JBJS. 1975;57(3):328–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Group TE. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramsay Refaie
    • 1
  • Amar Rangan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic SurgeryJames Cook University HospitalMiddlesbroughUK
  2. 2.University of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.University of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations