Dataset Information

Agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Society Standardized Shoulder Assessment score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) in patients presenting with shoulder pathology: A cohort analysis of the Clinical Quality Registry for Outcomes in Shoulder and Elbow Pathology (CROSEP) registry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The choice of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used in shoulder studies varies based on clinician's preference and location. This creates difficulties when attempting to compare studies which have used different PROMs as their outcome measure. This study aims to assess the agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and identify factors associated with agreement.

Methods

Patients with shoulder pathology were identified from a multi-cohort observational practice registry. 1050 paired ASES and OSS pre-treatment scores were prospectively collected. Linear regression was performed to assess the agreement between the PROMs. Mixed-effects analysis of variance was performed to assess the influence of factors associated with agreement.

Results

Regression for mean total and mean function ASES and OSS demonstrated good fit (adjusted R² 57.7%, P < 0.001; and 63.9%, P < 0.001). Mean pain subscore demonstrated a poorer fit (adjusted R² 39.4%, P < 0.001). Crosswalks to convert between mean scores were produced with reasonable precision. Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey score, age and diagnosis cohort influenced agreement.

Conclusion

Mean total and mean function ASES and OSS scores agree well with each other. This allows for a more informed comparison of studies using either PROMs as their outcome measure.

SUBMITTER: Teoh WW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9720864 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Society Standardized Shoulder Assessment score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) in patients presenting with shoulder pathology: A cohort analysis of the Clinical Quality Registry for Outcomes in Shoulder and Elbow Pathology (CROSEP) registry.

Teoh Wesley Wh WW Scholes Corey C Clitherow Harry H

Shoulder & elbow 20211216 6

<h4>Background</h4>The choice of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used in shoulder studies varies based on clinician's preference and location. This creates difficulties when attempting to compare studies which have used different PROMs as their outcome measure. This study aims to assess the agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and identify factors associated with agreement.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with shoulder patho ...[more]

PMID: 36479016

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Oxford Elbow Score (OES) is an English-language questionnaire specifically designed to evaluate surgical elbow outcomes. This scoring system has been translated into other languages. Given the lack of an Italian version of the OES, the present study was designed to establish, culturally adapt, and validate the Italian version.MethodsThe OES questionnaire was culturally adapted to Italian patients in accordance with the literature guidelines with a pilot phase including seven patients with elbow problems and seven healthy subjects. The study includes 110 participants from three hospitals, who underwent elbow surgery for acute (70%) or chronic diseases. At least one month after elbow surgery, at the "index visit", the physician completed the Mayo Elbow Performance Index and patients completed the following questionnaires: the Italian OES, the shortened version of the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and the Short-Form 36 Health Survey. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Reproducibility was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient in ten patients who completed the OES again two-three days after the index visit. Construct validity was assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. Responsiveness was evaluated in 68 patients who answered the questionnaires four months after the index visit, using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the effect size and the standardized response mean calculation.ResultsCronbach's alpha was excellent: 0.86 (0.82-0.90) for OES pain, 0.92 (0.90-0.94) for OES function, and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for OES social/psychological. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.94 (0.78-0.98) for OES pain, 0.91 (0.71-0.97) for OES function, 0.95 (0.83-0.98) for OES social-psychological and 0.93 (0.76-0.98) for OES total. The Spearman ρ was >0.7 for OES pain and QuickDASH, for OES function and both QuickDASH and Mayo Elbow Performance Index, and for OES social-psychological and QuickDASH. Regarding responsiveness, the mean of the changes between the two visits ranged from 33.9 for OES pain, to 44 points for OES function and OES social/psychological. The effect size and the standardized response mean were >0.8 for all OES domains.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that the Italian version of the OES, translated in accordance with the international standardized guidelines, is reliable, valid, and responsive in patients who have undergone elbow surgery.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the prominence of hip fractures in orthopedic trauma, the assessment of fracture healing using radiographs remains subjective. The variability in the assessment of fracture healing has important implications for both clinical research and patient care. With little existing literature regarding reliable consensus on hip fracture healing, this study was conducted to determine inter-rater reliability between orthopedic surgeons and radiologists on healing assessments using sequential radiographs in patients with hip fractures. Secondary objectives included evaluating a checklist designed to assess hip fracture healing and determining whether agreement improved when reviewers were aware of the timing of the x-rays in relation to the patients' surgery.MethodsA panel of six reviewers (three orthopedic surgeons and three radiologists) independently assessed fracture healing using sequential radiographs from 100 patients with femoral neck fractures and 100 patients with intertrochanteric fractures. During their independent review they also completed a previously developed radiographic checklist (Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH)). Inter and intra-rater reliability scores were calculated. Data from the current study was compared to the findings from a previously conducted study where the same reviewers, unaware of the timing of the x-rays, completed the RUSH score.ResultsThe agreement between surgeons and radiologists for fracture healing was moderate for "general impression of fracture healing" in both femoral neck (ICC = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42-0.71) and intertrochanteric fractures (0.50, 95% CI: 0.33-0.62). Using a standardized checklist (RUSH), agreement was almost perfect in both femoral neck (ICC = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87) and intertrochanteric fractures (0.88, 95% CI: 0.86-0.90). We also found a high degree of correlation between healing and the total RUSH score using a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis, there was an area under the curve of 0.993 for femoral neck cases and 0.989 for intertrochanteric cases. Agreement within the radiologist group and within the surgeon group did not significantly differ in our analyses. In all cases, radiographs in which the time from surgery was known resulted in higher agreement scores compared to those from the previous study in which reviewers were unaware of the time the radiograph was obtained.ConclusionsAgreement in hip fracture radiographic healing may be improved with the use of a standardized checklist and appears highly influenced by the timing of the radiograph. These findings should be considered when evaluating patient outcomes and in clinical studies involving patients with hip fractures. Future research initiatives are required to further evaluate the RUSH checklist.