Reliability and validity of shoulder function outcome measures in people with a proximal humeral fracture

References

• Kirshner B and Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985;38:27–36
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Streiner DL and Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales – a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008
   Google Scholar
• van de Water ATM, Shields N and Taylor NF. Outcome measures in the management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of their use and psychometric properties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:333–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slobogean GP, Noonan VK and O'Brien PJ. The reliability and validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, EuroQol-5D, Health Utilities Index, and Short Form-6D outcome instruments in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:342–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tingart M, Bathis H, Lefering R, et al. Constant-score and Neer-score. A comparison of score result and patients subjective assessment. [German]. Unfallchirurg 2001;104:1048–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker P, Nanda R, Goodchild L, et al. A comparison of the Constant and Oxford shoulder scores in patients with conservatively treated proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;17:37–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Bond TG and Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model – fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Brorson S, Olsen BS, Frich LH, et al. Effect of osteosynthesis, primary hemiarthroplasty, and non-surgical management for displaced four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly: a multi-centre, randomised clinical trial. Trials 2009;10:51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahrs C, Rolauffs B, Dietz K, et al. Clinical and radiological evaluation of minimally displaced proximal humeral fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130:673–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M and Leunig M. Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004;13:427–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970;52:1077–89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P and Schatzker J. The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1990
   Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1975;23:433–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter SD, Eliasziw M and Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 1998;17:101–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudak PL, Amadio PC and Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head). Am J Ind Med 1996;29:602–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R and Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:593–600
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bastian JD and Hertel R. Osteosynthesis and hemiarthroplasty of fractures of the proximal humerus: outcomes in a consecutive case series. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009;18:216–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Constant CR and Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 1987;214:160–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJH, et al. A review of the constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;17:355–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellman H, Hanker G and Bayer M. Repair of the rotator cuff. End-result study of factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68:1136–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, et al. The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum 2003;49:156–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fix A, Daughton D. Human activity profile professional manual. Odessa (FL): Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.; 1988
   Google Scholar
• The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J and Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407–15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A and Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:81–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angst F. The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:152; author reply 152
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:737–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, et al. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:212–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:582–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keating J, Matyas T. Unreliable inferences from reliable measurements. Aust J Physiother 1998;44:5–10
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Sartorio F, et al. Suggestions for refinement of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH): a factor analysis and Rasch validation study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:1370–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabel CP, Yelland M, Melloh M, Burkett B. A modified QuickDASH-9 provides a valid outcome instrument for upper limb function. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009;10:161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Bombardier C, Tugwell PX. Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ 1986;134:889–95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lillkrona U. How should we use the constant score? A commentary. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;17:362–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Constant-Murley score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:157–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olerud P, Tidermark J, Ponzer S, et al. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:1200–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003;4:11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar