Establishing the psychometric properties of 2 self-reported outcome measures of elbow pain and function: A systematic review

Abstract

Study DesignSystematic review. IntroductionThe Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) and the self-report section of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons—elbow form (pASES-e) are 2 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) commonly used to assess pain and disability arising from elbow disorders. Purpose of the StudyTo systematically review and summarize the quality and content of the evidence that is available on the psychometric properties of the PREE and pASES-e. MethodsWe systematically searched the online databases PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, UptoDate, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Google Scholar. Ninety-one articles were retrieved, and after screening, 9 were included in the final analysis. Data extraction and quality appraisal was performed by 2 independent raters. Descriptive synthesis of the reviewed studies was completed. ResultsSeven of the 9 studies had a quality score of 75% or higher. Agreement between the raters was good (kappa, 0.81). Both the PROMs did not demonstrate any floor and ceiling effects except for the satisfaction subscale of the pASES-e. Factor analysis revealed multidimensionality in the function subscale for both the PROMs. Construct validity was good with correlations above 0.70. Both were highly reliable with interclass correlation coefficient of >0.90. They were also highly responsive with an effect size and standardized response mean above 1. The minimal clinical important difference was not estimated for either measures. DiscussionThis study concluded that strong clinical measurement properties exist for both the PREE and the pASES-e. We identified gaps in the current evidence for both the ASES-e and the PREE. Future studies need to calculate clinically important estimates like MCID, SEM, and others; and provide clear and specific conclusions. ConclusionThe PREE and pASES-e have been established to be valid, reliable, and sensitive to change in both clinical and research settings based on high-quality evidence.