Skip Navigation



Rheumatology Advance Access published online on August 10, 2004
Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh367
Rheumatology © British Society for Rheumatology 2004; all rights reserved
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
43/11/1434    most recent
keh367v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sathyamoorthy, P.
Right arrow Articles by Frostick, S. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sathyamoorthy, P.
Right arrow Articles by Frostick, S. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Received December 19, 2003
Accepted July 13, 2004

Original Papers

Development and validation of an elbow score

P. Sathyamoorthy 1, G. J. Kemp 1, A. Rawal 1, V. Rayner 1, S. P. Frostick 1*

1 Department of Musculoskeletal Science, Royal Liverpool University Hospital and Liverpool Upper Limb Surgery Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: s.p.frostick{at}liv.ac.uk.


  Abstract

Objectives. Few of the questionnaires available for evaluating the function and clinical state of the elbow have been validated. An ideal score would be consistent, sensitive, reliable and elbow-specific, incorporating both patient perception and clinician assessment. This was our aim.

Methods. Items were generated using 25 patients and expert opinion, and reduced using 25 new patients to yield a nine-item patient questionnaire and a six-item clinical evaluation (of strength, motion and ulnar nerve involvement). This was validated using 63 new patients (of whom 28 were studied twice without therapy and 18 were studied again after appropriate surgery).

Results. The test-retest reliability coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.93) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.98) were both good. Convergent validity was attested by good correlations with other scores, the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) (physical) (R2 = 0.62 and 0.29, P<0.0005). Sensitivity to change was demonstrated by correlating preoperative-postoperative changes to those in DASH and NHP (physical) (R2 = 0.50 and 0.27, P<0.04).

Conclusion. This is a reliable, internally consistent score, correlating well with other, non-elbow specific scores and sensitive to change on treatment.

Keywords: Clinical score; Elbow; Outcome measure; Validation.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
J. Dawson, H. Doll, I. Boller, R. Fitzpatrick, C. Little, J. Rees, C. Jenkinson, and A. J. Carr
The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery
J Bone Joint Surg Br, April 1, 2008; 90-B(4): 466 - 473.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
T. S. Jepegnanam
Salvage of the radial head in chronic adult Monteggia fractures: REPORT OF FOUR CASES
J Bone Joint Surg Br, May 1, 2006; 88-B(5): 645 - 648.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.