Outcome Measures Following Upper Limb Trauma
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.
- 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.
- 13.The COMET initiative website: http://www.comet-initiative.org/. Accessed 26 Jan 2018.
- 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
- 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