Bone and Joint Institute

Title

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

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

4-1-2019

Journal

Journal of Hand Therapy

Volume

32

Issue

2

First Page

222

Last Page

232

URL with Digital Object Identifier

10.1016/j.jht.2018.07.004

Abstract

© 2018 Hanley & Belfus Study Design: Systematic review. Introduction: The 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 Study: To systematically review and summarize the quality and content of the evidence that is available on the psychometric properties of the PREE and pASES-e. Methods: We 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. Results: Seven 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. Discussion: This 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. Conclusion: The 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.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS