The use of outcome scores in surgery of the shoulder

Abstract

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volumeVol. 87-B, No. 2 AnnotationsFree AccessThe use of outcome scores in surgery of the shoulderP. Harvie, T. C. B. Pollard, R. J. Chennagiri, A. J. CarrP. HarvieSpecialist Registrar in Trauma and OrthopaedicsThe John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.Search for more papers by this author, T. C. B. PollardClinical Research FellowDepartment of Orthopaedics, Frenchay Hospital, Park Road, Frenchay, Bristol BS16 1LE, UK.Search for more papers by this author, R. J. ChennagiriSpecialist Registrar in Trauma and OrthopaedicsThe John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.Search for more papers by this author, A. J. CarrNuffield Professor of Orthopaedic SurgeryNuffield Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Feb 2005https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B2.15305AboutSectionsView articleSupplemental MaterialPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsAdd to Favourites ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View articleThe pursuit of ‘best practice’, health economic planning, the increasing awareness and expectations of patients, pressure from politicians and the media, and the emergence of league tables for surgeons are some of the reasons why orthopaedic surgeons are encouraged to adopt evidence-based strategies for managing their patients. Levels of evidence have been devised which allow publications to be ranked or given a grade of recommendation.1,2 The highest levels are assigned to well-designed, randomised, controlled trials and systematic reviews of such trials.Lower levels are offered by cohort studies in which patients are compared with a control group treated at the same time and in the same institution. Such studies are ranked higher than randomised trials of poor quality, retrospective cohort studies or case-control studies. Individual case series and poorly designed cohort studies are lower still while the final level is expert opinions without critical appraisal and descriptive studies or reports from expert committees (Table I). Proper studies require good design and the use of validated outcome measures. We have carried out a systematic review of the use of outcome scores and research methods in surgery of the shoulder to establish whether the literature provides suitable evidence on which to establish best practice.Review of the literatureA systematic review was undertaken of all articles relating to the shoulder published in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Br] and the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Am] between January 1992 and December 2002. After manual searching, all papers which documented any form of clinical outcome were included for more detailed review.3–53 Those relating to anatomy, pathology, biomechanics, engineering design or technical aspects which did not involve a clinical outcome were excluded. Each paper chosen was placed into one of 16 broad categories according to its subspecialty. The exact number of patients studied as well as the minimum, maximum and mean periods of follow-up were recorded. A ‘grade of recommendation’ and ‘level of evidence’ were assigned to each paper in accordance with the standards shown in Table I. All criteria used to describe a clinical outcome were recorded, whether in the form of observations such as power or range of movement, or by the use of a recognised scoring system. Each paper was reviewed to ascertain whether a description of the outcome method used and the reasons for its selection were included in the text. In particular, we looked for details of the original group of patients on which any outcome score was based. An outcome score was regarded as appropriate if it was used unmodified for a validated group of patients.ResultsWe reviewed 1106 articles relating to surgery on the shoulder. Of these, 496 were excluded on the basis of non-clinical content. The remaining 610 underwent more detailed review. There were 198 case reports and 379 cohort studies, the latter including 19 RCTs, but no systematic reviews (Table I). The mean sample size was 42 (1 to 1063). The overall mean follow-up was 27 months (1 to 540) with a minimum of 12 (1 to 540) and a maximum of 68 months (1 to 540). A formal outcome was described in 569 (93.3%) articles. Of these, 271 (47.6%) used clinical assessment, 217 (38.1%) an outcome score and 81 (14.2%) both. A total of 44 different outcome scores were encountered, 22 clinician-based (50.0%), 21 patient-based (47.7%) and one clinician- and patient-based (2.3%). Of 439 applications of an outcome score, 266 (60.6%) were clinician-based, 105 (23.9%) patient-based and 68 (15.5%) clinician- and patient-based. Trends in the use of the different types of score are shown in Figure 1. Of 298 articles using outcome scores, 126 (42.3%) described the details of the score within the text, but only eight (2.7%) made clear the reasons for the choice of the particular score.Closer scrutiny of the use of clinical assessment in 352 articles showed a mean of 2.3 observations (1 to 6) per article. Those used were range of movement (208), pain (202), function/activities of daily living (129), power (88), radiological appearance (83), patient satisfaction (67) and stability (47). In the 298 articles using a formal outcome score a mean of 1.5 outcomes (1 to 6) was used per article. Overall, of the 439 applications of an outcome score 282 (64.2%) were regarded as being appropriate (Fig. 2). All formal outcome measures identified during the course of this review are listed.DiscussionThe proposal that clinical outcome in orthopaedic surgery could be analysed systematically so that patients would receive increased benefits from their treatment was first introduced by Codman et al3 in the second decade of the 20th century, and is the basis of his concept of the “End Result”. Unfortunately, his peers did not share his enthusiasm. Codman’s frustration culminated at a meeting on January 6, 1915 in which he ridiculed his colleagues and members of the hospital board, portraying them in a large cartoon as an ostrich burying its head in the sand and choosing to ignore what was happening around it. Codman’s career declined thereafter and he died in relative anonymity. Systematic reviews of randomised, controlled trials offer the maximum levels of evidence upon which clinical decisions can be based. No such reviews were found in the course of this investigation. Although 19 randomised, controlled trials (3.1%) were identified, 538 papers (88.2%) described case series offering low levels of evidence. The undertaking of a randomised, controlled trial for a surgical procedure is costly and time-consuming. Nevertheless, increased use of cohort or case-control studies would considerably improve the level of evidence available.The use of validated outcome scores allows comparisons to be made between studies. If scores are modified or used on inappropriate groups of patients, such comparisons are flawed. The European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association have each given guidance on the preferred use of outcome scores. However, such recommendations are not uniformly accepted. Our review has shown that study cohorts are generally small, periods of follow-up short and levels of evidence low. The overall pattern of the application of an outcome score is highly variable and at times inappropriate. We have identified changes made to outcome scores, often without proper testing of the modification and without justification. For example, the Neer rating4 was initially used to assess the outcome of displaced fractures of the proximal humerus, but was modified to assess total shoulder arthroplasty5 and, more recently, repair of the rotator cuff,6 although its formal statistical validation for use with these differing groups has not been undertaken.The score of Constant and Murley7 is widely used, but large variations occur in how it is formulated. Pain is often assessed using separate visual analogue scales, the methods of measuring power vary and, most importantly, the fact that scores should be normalised for age and gender is selectively ignored.8 The application of objective clinical assessment of pain, range of movement, power and stability are acceptable means of measuring outcome. However, the means by which such assessments are measured and documented and the number of such criteria used in studies is variable. Scores may be patient-based such as the Oxford shoulder score,9 clinician-based as the Constant-Murley score or a combination of both as in the modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form.10 There are condition-specific scores such as the Oxford shoulder instability score11 and non-condition-specific scores such as the simple shoulder test.12 In recent years there has been a proliferation of patient-based outcome scores recognising the benefits of such scores compared with clinician-based assessments. The latter are susceptible to bias and error, and may not represent the view of the patient.13 Patient-based scores are designed for use in clinical trials and are valid for comparing and aggregating cohort studies.14–16 Their use will directly improve levels of evidence. Despite the trend to move away from the application of clinician-based outcome scores, our review has shown that in practice the magnitude of this shift is highly variable. Over the last decade the use of clinician-based scores has remained high. An overall understanding of the initial population upon which scores were first based is lacking. Newer scores such as the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI)17 were initially based on a cohort of 37 male patients with shoulder pain which was either musculoskeletal, neurogenic or of unknown aetiology. The patient self-reporting section of the modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons assessment form (M-ASES) has undergone validation. However, this was based on only 63 patients, 25 of whom had impingement, but only one had undergone hemiarthroplasty and two had tears of the rotator cuff.18 The use of outcome scores on cohorts for which they have not been validated casts doubt on the validity of the results.ConclusionForty-four different outcome scores were encountered in the course of this review, many being applied inappropriately. There is a trend towards the increased use of validated patient-based scores, but many have not been properly tested for validity, repeatability and sensitivity to change. Scores are not valid when used in a modified form and their use should be discouraged. Levels of evidence were generally low, with 88.2% of level 4, and with only a small number of RCTs. Improvement in the design of the studies and the use of appropriately validated outcome scores would substantially increase the levels of evidence on which to base best practice in surgery of the shoulder.Supplementary materialA table showing the list of outcome scores identified in the course of this review is available with the electronic version of this article, on our website at www.jbjs.org.uk.Table I. Hierarchy of evidence of reviewed papers with sample sizes and minimum, maximum and mean follow-up (range)Follow-up (mths)Grade of recommendationLevel of evidenceStudy designNumberSample sizeMinimumMaximumMeanA1aSystematic review (with homogeneity) of randomised, controlled trials0NANANANA1bIndividual randomised, controlled trials with independent blinding1285 (29 to 245)24 (3 to 120)32 (3 to 120)24 (3 to 120)1c‘All-or-none’ case series162124925B2aSystematic review (with homogeneity) of cohort studies0NANANANA2bIndividual cohort studies and low-quality randomised, controlled trials2573 (6 to 300)24 (1 to 180)66 (1 to 120)36 (1 to 194)2cOutcomes research29184 (8 to 1063)NANANA3aSystematic review of case-control studies0NANANANA3bIndividual case-control studies5154 (29 to 538)30 (5 to 120)32 (12 to 120)37 (9 to 120)C4Case series and poor-quality cohort and case-control studies538131 (1 to 667)22 (1 to 540)68 (1 to 540)27 (1 to 540)D5Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal0NANANANAFig. 1 Proportion of combined and clinician- and patient-based scores used to assess outcome over the period of study.Fig. 2 Manner of application of frequently encountered outcome scores (CMS, Constant-Murley shoulder score; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons standardised shoulder assessment form; UCLA, University of California Los Angeles shoulder rating scale; Neer, Neer shoulder rating; Rowe, Rowe instability score; SST, simple shoulder test; SF-36, 36-item short-form health survey; HSS, Hospital for Special Surgery shoulder assessment; MSTS, Musculo-skeletal tumour score; DASH, Disabilities of the arm shoulder and hand questionnaire; SPADI, shoulder pain and disability index).We wish to thank Mrs Pat Deeley, Academic Secretary to Professor A. J. Carr, for her assistance in collating the review of the literature.References1 Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, et al. Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence (May 2001) http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp#levels. (accessed 18/11/04) Google Scholar2 Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson WS, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach. Second ed. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2000. Google Scholar3 Codman EA, Chipman WW, Clark JG, Kanavel AB, Mayo WJ. Standardisation of hospitals: report of the committee appointed by the Clinical Congress of Surgeons of North America. Trans Clin Cong Surg North Am 1913;4:2–8. Google Scholar4 Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures: I. classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1970;52-A:1077–89. ISI, Google Scholar5 Neer CS II, Watson KC, Stanton FJ. Recent experience in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1982;64-A:319–37. ISI, Google Scholar6 Ellman H, Hanker G, Bayer M. Repair of the rotator cuff: end-result study of factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1986;68-A:1136–44. Google Scholar7 Constant CR, Murley AHG. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 1987;214:160–4. Google Scholar8 Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar9 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perception of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1996;78-B:593–600. Link, Google Scholar10 King GJW, Richards RR, Zuckerman JD, et al. A standardised method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999;3:351–4. Google Scholar11 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The assessment of shoulder stability: the development and validation of a questionnaire. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1999;81-B:420–6. Link, Google Scholar12 Lippitt SB, Harryman DT, Matsen FA III. A practical tool for evaluating function: the simple shoulder test. In: Matsen FA III, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ, eds. The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stability. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1993;519–29. Google Scholar13 Conboy VB, Morris RW, Kiss J, Carr AJ. An evaluation of the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1996;78-B:229–32. Link, Google Scholar14 Pynsent PB. Choosing an outcome measure. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2001;83-B:792–4. Link, Google Scholar15 Dawson J, Hill G, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The benefits of using patient-based methods of assessment: medium-term results of an observational study of shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2001;83-B:877–82. Link, Google Scholar16 Dawson J, Carr A. Outcomes evaluation in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2001;83-B:313–15. Link, Google Scholar17 Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y. Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res 1991;4:143–9. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar18 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 Elbow Surg 2002;11:587–94. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar19 Rowe CR, Patel D, Southmayd WW. The Bankart procedure: a long-term end-result study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1978;60-A:1–16. ISI, Google Scholar20 Amstutz HC, Sew Hoy AL, Clarke IC. UCLA anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1981;155:7–20. Google Scholar21 Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop 1980;153:106–60. Google Scholar22 Tajima T, Takagishi N. Evaluation system for the shoulder joint disorders. J Jpn Orthop Assoc 1987;61:623–9 (in Japanese). Google Scholar23 Weber ER, Daube JR, Coventry MB. Peripheral neuropathies associated with total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1976;58-A:66–9. ISI, Google Scholar24 Matsen FA III, Smith KL. Effectiveness evaluation of the shoulder. In: Rockwood CA, Matsen FA III, eds. The shoulder. Second ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1998:1313–39. Google Scholar25 Patte D. Directions for the use of the index severity for painful and/or chronic disabled shoulders. The first open congress of the European Society of Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow, Paris, 1987:36–41. Google Scholar26 Imatani RJ, Hanlon JJ, Cady GW. Acute, completed, acromioclavicular separation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1975;57-A:328–32. ISI, Google Scholar27 Rockwood CA Jr, Groh GI, Wirth MA, Grassi FA. Resection arthroplasty of the sternoclavicular joint. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1997;79-A:387–93. Google Scholar28 Warren RF, Ranawat CS, Inglis AE. Total shoulder replacement indications and results of the Neer Nonconstrained prosthesis. In: Inglis AE, ed. AAOS symposium on total joint replacement of the upper extremity. St Louis: CV Mosby, 1982:56–67. Google Scholar29 L’Insalata JC, Warren RF, Cohen SB, Altcheck DW, Peterson MGE. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of symptoms and function of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1997;79-A:738–48. Google Scholar30 Mancuso CA, Altchek DW, Craig EV, et al. Patients’ expectations of shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002;11:541–9. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar31 Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). Am J Ind Med 1996;29:602–8. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar32 Kohn D, Geyer M. The subjective shoulder rating system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1997;116:324–8. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar33 Swanson AB, De Groot Swanson G, Sattel AB, et al. Bipolar shoulder implant arthroplasty: long term results. Clin Orthop 1989;249:227–47. Google Scholar34 Benoliel JQ, McCorkle R, Young K. Development of a social dependency scale. Res Nurs Health 1980;3:3–10. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar35 Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop 1985;198:43–9. Google Scholar36 Darrow JC Jr, Smith JA, Lockwood RC. A new conservative method for treatment of type III acromioclavicular separations. Orthop Clin North Am 1980;11:727–33. Medline, ISI, Google Scholar37 Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstruction procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop 1993;286:241–6. Google Scholar38 Davis AM, Wright JG, Williams JI, et al. Development of a measure of physical function for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Qual Life Res 1996;5:508–16. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google Scholar39 Saillant G, Feuillade P, Sagnet P. Fractures de l’extrémité supérieure de l’humerus. In: Roy-Camille R, ed. Traumatologie de l’épaule et de la ceinture scapulaire. First ed. Paris: Masson, 1979:182–95. Google Scholar40 Post MD, Benca P. Primary tendinitis of the long head of biceps. Clin Orthop 1989; 246:117–25. Google Scholar41 Mallet J. Obstetrical paralysis of the brachial plexus II. therapeutics of sequelae. Priority for the treatment of the shoulder: method for the expression of results. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1972;58(Suppl I):166–8 (in French). Google Scholar42 Herscovici D Jr, Fiennes AGTW, Allgöwer M, Rüedi TP. The floating shoulder: ipsilateral clavicle and scapular neck fractures. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1992;74-B: 362–4. Link, Google Scholar43 Stucki G, Liang MH, Stucki S, Brühlmann P, Michel BA. A self-administered rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index (RADAI) for epidemiological research: psychometric properties and correlation with parameters of disease activity. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:795–8. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar44 Fries JF, Spitz PW, Young DY. The dimensions of health outcomes: the Health Assessment Questionnaire, disability and pain scales. J Rheumatol 1982;9:789–93. Medline, ISI, Google Scholar45 Patte D, Goutallier D. Extensive anterior release in the painful shoulder caused by anterior impingement. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1988;74:306–11 (in French). Medline, Google Scholar46 Glorion B, Delplace J. Surgical treatment of acromio-clavicular dislocations by the Dewar-Barrington technic: critical study and results apropos 41 cases. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1973;59:667–79 (in French). Medline, Google Scholar47 Smith SP, Thyoka M, Lavy CBD, Pitani A. Septic arthritis of the shoulder in children in Malawi: a randomised prospective study of aspiration versus arthrotomy and washout. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2002;84-B:1167–72. Link, Google Scholar48 McCallum RI, Walder DN. Bone lesions in compressed air workers with special reference to men who worked on the Clyde tunnels 1958 to 1963. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1966;48-B:207–35. Link, Google Scholar49 McGinnis M, Denton JR. Fractures of the scapula: a retrospective study of 40 fractured scapulae. J Trauma 1989;29:1488–93. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar50 Lazarus MD, Chansky HA, Misra S, Williams GR, Ianotti JP. Comparison of open and arthroscopic subacromial decompression. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994;3: 1–11. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar51 Thorling J, Bjerneld H, Hallin G, Hovelius L, Hagg O. Acromioplasty for impingement syndrome. Acta Orthop Scand 1985;56:147–8. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar52 Walch G. La luxation recidivante anterieure de l’épaule. Table Ronde Journées de Printemps de la SOFCOT. Rev Chir Orthop 1991;77 (Suppl 1):77–148 (in French). Medline, Google Scholar53 Hollinshead RM, Mohtadi NG, Vande Guchte RA, Wadey VMR. Two 6-year follow-up studies of large and massive rotator cuff tears: comparison of outcome measures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2000;9:373–81. Crossref, Medline, ISI, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byDetermining the outcomes after shoulder surgeryOrthopaedics and Trauma, Vol. 29A concept analysis and overview of outcome measures used for evaluating patients with proximal humerus fractures3 September 2019 | Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 43, No. 10Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation for instability as an alternative to the Rowe scoreJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 30, No. 5Automated Nerve Monitoring in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled StudyAnesthesiology, Vol. 81Effect of deltoid volume on range of motion and patient-reported outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in rotator cuff-intact and rotator cuff-deficient conditions14 May 2020 | Shoulder & Elbow, Vol. 89Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) correlates with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repairJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 29, No. 2Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores correlate positively with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores postoperatively in patients undergoing rotator cuff repairJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 29, No. 1What Outcome Measures Are Reported in the Management of Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries?8 January 2020 | Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 8, No. 1Effect Size in Surgical Intervention Into Shoulder: What Procedures Are Game Changers and What Are Not?1 March 2020 | JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews, Vol. 4, No. 3Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: Systematic Review of Outcomes Assessment Used in Brazil23 September 2019 | Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia, Vol. 91Patterns in Outcomes Reporting of Operatively Managed Pediatric Patellofemoral Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis9 April 2018 | The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 47, No. 6Usefulness of Shoulder36 in rotator cuff tears: Comparison with Simple Shoulder Test18 December 2018 | Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vol. 27, No. 1Outcome Measurement Tools for Rotator Cuff DiseaseCorrelação entre as escalas da UCLA e Constant‐Murley nas roturas do manguito rotador e fraturas da extremidade proximal do úmeroRevista Brasileira de Ortopedia, Vol. 53, No. 4Correlation between the UCLA and Constant-Murley scores in rotator cuff repairs and proximal humeral fractures osteosynthesisRevista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), Vol. 53, No. 4Outcomes of shoulder surgeryOrthopaedics and Trauma, Vol. 32, No. 3Assessment of cross-cultural adaptations of patient-reported shoulder outcome measures in Spanish: a systematic review17 February 2017 | Shoulder & Elbow, Vol. 9, No. 4Avaliação dos desfechos no tratamento da rotura do manguito rotador: o que usamos no Brasil?Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia, Vol. 52, No. 5Outcome assessment in the treatment of rotator cuff tear: what is utilized in Brazil?Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), Vol. 52, No. 5Clinical Outcome Reporting in Youth ACL Literature Is Widely Variable11 August 2017 | Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 8Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: correlation between the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scoresJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 26, No. 7Cut-off values of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score corresponding to Constant scores for evaluating outcomes in rotator cuff tear12 July 2017 | Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vol. 25, No. 2Heightened clinical utility of smartphone versus body-worn inertial system for shoulder function B-B score20 March 2017 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 12, No. 3Variability in Outcome Reporting for Operatively Managed Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: A Systematic ReviewArthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, Vol. 33, No. 2Assessing Outcomes11 October 2017Variable reporting of functional outcomes and return to play in superior labrum anterior and posterior tearJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 25, No. 11Comprehensiveness of Outcome Reporting in Studies of Articular Cartilage Defects of the KneeArthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, Vol. 32, No. 10Chinese medicine packet plus wax therapy for periarthritis of the shoulder: study protocol for a multi-center, randomized controlled trialClinical and Translational Degenerative Diseases, Vol. 1, No. 1Outcomes assessment in rotator cuff pathology: what are we measuring?Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 24, No. 12High Variability in Outcome Reporting Patterns in High-Impact ACL LiteratureJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 97, No. 18Correlation Between American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation Score After Rotator Cuff or SLAP RepairArthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, Vol. 31, No. 9Long-term outcomes of all-inside meniscal repair6 June 2013 | Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, Vol. 23, No. 1Clinical investigation for displaced proximal humeral fractures in the elderly: a randomized study of two surgical treatments: reverse total prosthetic replacement versus angular stable plate Philos (The DELPHI-trial)28 September 2014 | BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, Vol. 15, No. 1The effect of inferomedial screw on postoperative shoulder function and mechanical alignment in proximal humerus fractures12 December 2013 | European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, Vol. 24, No. 7A preformed antibiotic-loaded spacer for treatment for septic arthritis of the shoulder14 May 2013 | MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY, Vol. 98, No. 1The best combination of physical performance and self-report measures to capture function in three patient groups19 December 2013 | Physical Therapy Reviews, Vol. 19, No. 3Self-Assessment of Treatment Outcomes in Shoulder Arthroscopy26 October 2013The Bankart Procedure: A Long-Term End-Result Study7 December 2013A Clinical Method for Functional Assessment of the Shoulder7 December 2013Outcome Scores for Shoulder Dysfunction22 April 2014A Patient-derived Constant-Murley Score is Comparable to a Clinician-derived Score28 August 2013 | Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, Vol. 472, No. 1A new instrument to measure the activity profile of elderly shoulder pathology patients: The Senior Shoulder Activity score (SSA score)Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, Vol. 99, No. 8Un nouvel outil d’évaluation du profil d’activité des séniors présentant une pathologie de l’épaule : le score SSA (Senior Shoulder Activity)Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique, Vol. 99, No. 8Complication rates and outcomes stratified by treatment modalities in proximal humeral fractures: a systematic literature review from 1970–200924 November 2013 | Patient Safety in Surgery, Vol. 7, No. 1Why does my shoulder hurt? A review of the neuroanatomical and biochemical basis of shoulder pain21 February 2013 | British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 47, No. 17Fractures of the proximal humerus5 December 2013 | Acta Orthopaedica, Vol. 84, No. sup351The development and validation of a scoring system for shoulder injuries in rugby players12 February 2013 | British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 47, No. 14Clinical evaluation of upper limb function: Patient’s impairment, disability and health-related quality of life31 August 2013 | Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation, Vol. 9, No. 4Os acromiale, a cause of shoulder pain, not to be overlookedOrthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, Vol. 99, No. 4Os acromial : une source de douleur scapulaire à ne pas manquerRevue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique, Vol. 99, No. 4Functional Outcomes Following Locking Plate Fixation of Complex Proximal Humeral FracturesOrthopedics, Vol. 36, No. 6A double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of subacromial injection with corticosteroid versus NSAID in patients with shoulder impingement syndromeJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 22, No. 5Effect of Evidence and Changes in Reimbursement on the Rate of Arthroscopy for Osteoarthritis4 March 2013 | The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 41, No. 5Scores fonctionnelsOutcomes Scores for Shoulder Instability and Rotator Cuff Disease16 May 2013Shoulder outcome measures: is there a right answer?15 September 2012 | European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Vol. 38, No. 6Rating Systems for Evaluation of Functional Ankle Instability24 September 2012 | Foot & Ankle Specialist, Vol. 5, No. 5Conventional rotator cuff repair complemented by the aid of mononuclear autologous stem cells20 July 2011 | Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, Vol. 20, No. 2Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the Oxford shoulder score30 September 2011 | Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Vol. 132, No. 1An Overview of Factors Relevant to Undertaking Research and Reviews on the Effectiveness of Treatment for Frozen Shoulder6 February 2017 | Shoulder & Elbow, Vol. 2, No. 4Use of locking plates in the treatment of proximal humerus fracturesJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 19, No. 2Shoulder morbidity after pectoralis major flap reconstruction for head and neck cancerHead & Neck, Vol. 31, No. 11The development and validation of an appraisal method for rotator cuff disorders: The Korean Shoulder Scoring SystemJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 18, No. 5The Use of Precontoured Humeral Locking Plates in the Management of Displaced Proximal Humerus FractureJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Vol. 17, No. 9Is retrospective application of the Oxford Shoulder Score valid?Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 18, No. 4Gender-specific Constant score correction for age28 February 2009 | Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, Vol. 17, No. 5Outcome analysis of surgery for disorders of the rotator cuffA COMPARISON OF SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE SCORING TOOLSR. Allom, T. Colegate-Stone, M. Gee, M. Ismail, J. Sinha1 March 2009 | The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, Vol. 91-B, No. 3Locking Plate Fixation for Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Comparison With Other Fixation TechniquesOrthopedics, Vol. 31, No. 12How should we use the Constant Score?—A commentaryJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 17, No. 2The surgical treatment of the recurrent dislocation on the shoulder joint with minimum invasion anterior approachMedicinski pregled, Vol. 61, No. 1-2Treatment of Proximal Humerus FracturesJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Vol. 21, No. 7Two to nineteen years follow-up of arthroscopic meniscal repair using the outside-in technique: a retrospective study12 April 2006 | Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Vol. 127, No. 4Summary from the Academy???s Seventh State-of-the-Science Conference on Knee-Ankle-Foot Orthoses for AmbulationJPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Vol. 18, No. ProceedingsEvidence-based orthopaedic surgeryWHAT TYPE OF RESEARCH WILL BEST IMPROVE CLINICAL PRACTICE?A. J. Carr1 December 2005 | The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, Vol. 87-B, No. 12Valoración de resultados en Cirugía Ortopédica y TraumatologíaRevista de Ortopedia y Traumatología, Vol. 49 Vol. 87-B, No. 2 Supplemental MaterialsMetrics History Published online 1 February 2005 Published in print 1 February 2005 InformationCopyright © 2005, The British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery: All rights reservedPDF download