Psychometric Properties of Patient-reported Outcomes Measures Used to Assess Upper Limb Pathology: a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal ANZ J Surg

Specialties General Medicine
General Surgery

Date 2022 Aug 12

PMID 35959939

Authors

Samuel Abbot

Susanna Proudman

Yih Ping Sim

Nicole Williams

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: With the continued development of patient-centred healthcare models, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to evaluate outcomes in patients with upper limb pathology. The aim was to identify valid, reliable and responsive PROMs used to assess outcomes following upper limb pathology, and ascertain how their psychometric properties had been established. A secondary aim was to identify PROMs that have been validated to assess upper limb pathology in the paediatric population.

Methods: A review of the Medline and EMBASE database was performed. Articles that analysed the validity of an established PROM used for upper limb pathology were included. Extracted study data included: author, country, PROM(s) investigated, year of publication, study type, sample size, demographics and duration of follow-up.

Results: Twenty-five articles were included, which together investigated the psychometric properties of 23 different PROMs that have been used to assess outcomes in adults following upper limb pathology. No study evaluated the psychometric properties of PROMs used in the paediatric population. Among PROMs that have been used in adults, the Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) had strong content- and construct-validity, reliability and responsiveness in comparison to others.

Conclusion: There are currently no studies that have analysed the content validity of PROMs used to assess upper limb pathology in the paediatric population. Prospective studies are required for the development of PROMs that can be utilized in children to assess upper limb pathology.

Citing Articles

Comprehensive Assessment of Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hand and Wrist Conditions in Adults: A Scoping Review.

Iskander S, Halbesma G, Hoogbergen M, Young-Afat D, Veldhuizen I JPRAS Open. 2025; 43:475-490.

PMID: 39995575 PMC: 11849562. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2024.12.005.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Measurement Properties of the Upper Limb Functional Index (ULFI) for Greek-Speaking Patients.

Chamogeorgakis G, Karanasios S, Theotokatos G, Vasilogeorgis I, Korakakis V Cureus. 2023; 15(6):e40029.

PMID: 37425611 PMC: 10323981. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40029.

References

Daltroy L, Liang M, Fossel A, Goldberg M . The POSNA pediatric musculoskeletal functional health questionnaire: report on reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Pediatric Outcomes Instrument Development Group. Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America. J Pediatr Orthop. 1998; 18(5):561-71. DOI: 10.1097/00004694-199809000-00001. View

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. PMC: 2707599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. View

Beaton D, Wright J, Katz J . Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(5):1038-46. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02060. View

van de Water A, Shields N, Davidson M, Evans M, Taylor N . Reliability and validity of shoulder function outcome measures in people with a proximal humeral fracture. Disabil Rehabil. 2013; 36(13):1072-9. DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2013.829529. View

Jayakumar P, Teunis T, Vranceanu A, Lamb S, Williams M, Ring D . Construct Validity and Precision of Different Patient-reported Outcome Measures During Recovery After Upper Extremity Fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019; 477(11):2521-2530. PMC: 6903842. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000928. View

Constant C, Murley A . A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; (214):160-4. View

van de Water A, Davidson M, Shields N, Evans M, Taylor N . The Shoulder Function Index (SFInX): evaluation of its measurement properties in people recovering from a proximal humeral fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17:295. PMC: 4950219. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1138-0. View

Hemelaers L, Angst F, Drerup S, Simmen B, Wood-Dauphinee S . Reliability and validity of the German version of "the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE)" as an outcome measure of wrist pain and disability in patients with acute distal radius fractures. J Hand Ther. 2008; 21(4):366-76. DOI: 10.1197/j.jht.2008.03.002. View

Alotaibi N, Aljadi S, Alrowayeh H . Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Arabic version of the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH-Arabic). Disabil Rehabil. 2016; 38(25):2469-78. DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1136846. View

10.

Slobogean G, Slobogean B . Measuring shoulder injury function: common scales and checklists. Injury. 2010; 42(3):248-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.046. View

11.

Oke Topcu D, Afsar S . Reliability, validity, and cross-cultural adaptation study of the Turkish version of the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation questionnaire. Turk J Med Sci. 2019; 49(2):574-582. PMC: 7018336. DOI: 10.3906/sag-1806-37. View

12.

Leggin B, Michener L, Shaffer M, Brenneman S, Iannotti J, Williams Jr G . The Penn shoulder score: reliability and validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36(3):138-51. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2006.36.3.138. View

13.

Hudak P, Amadio P, Bombardier C . Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996; 29(6):602-8. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L. View

14.

Cook D, Beckman T . Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med. 2006; 119(2):166.e7-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036. View

15.

Gire J, Koltsov J, Segovia N, Kenney D, Yao J, Ladd A . Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) in Hand Surgery: Does a One-Question Outcome Instrument Compare Favorably?. J Hand Surg Am. 2020; 45(7):589-596. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.03.024. View

16.

de Haan J, Goei H, Schep N, Tuinebreijer W, Patka P, Den Hartog D . The reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the Oxford elbow score. J Orthop Surg Res. 2011; 6:39. PMC: 3162922. DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-6-39. View

17.

Schonnemann J, Larsen K, Hansen T, Soballe K . Reliability and validity of the Danish version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire in patients with fractured wrists. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2011; 45(1):35-9. DOI: 10.3109/2000656X.2011.554708. View

18.

Khan W, Jain R, Dillon B, Clarke L, Fehily M, Ravenscroft M . The 'M2 DASH'-Manchester-modified Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand score. Hand (N Y). 2008; 3(3):240-4. PMC: 2525880. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-008-9090-6. View

19.

van Eck M, Lameijer C, El Moumni M . Structural validity of the Dutch version of the disability of arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV) in adult patients with hand and wrist injuries. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19(1):207. PMC: 6026503. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-018-2114-7. View

20.

Slobogean G, Noonan V, OBrien P . 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(3):342-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.10.021. View