The use of shoulder scoring systems and outcome measures in the UK

INTRODUCTION: In future, outcomes following shoulder surgery may be subject to public survey. Many outcome measures exist but we do not know whether there is a consensus between shoulder surgeons in the UK. The aim of this study was to survey the preferred outcome measures used by National Health Service (NHS) shoulder surgeons operating in the UK. METHODS: A total of 350 shoulder surgeons working in NHS hospitals were asked to complete a short written questionnaire regarding their use of scoring systems and outcome measures. Questionnaires were sent and responses were received by post. RESULTS: Overall, 217 responses were received (62%). Of the respondents, 171 (79%) use an outcome measure in their shoulder practice while 46 (21%) do not. There were 118 surgeons (69%) who use more than one outcome measure. The Oxford shoulder score was most commonly used by 150 surgeons (69%), followed by the Constant score with 106 (49%), the Oxford shoulder instability score with 82 (38%), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score with 54 (25%). The less commonly used outcome measures were the SF-36® and SF-12® health questionnaires with 19 (9%), the University of California at Los Angeles activity score with 8 (4%), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder assessment form with 8 (4%) and the EQ-5D™ with 10 (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Validated outcome measures should be adopted by all practising surgeons in all specialties. This will allow better assessment of treatments in addition to assessment of surgical performance in a transparent way

Italian version of ASES questionnaire for shoulder assessment: cross-cultural adaptation and validation

The patient-oriented measures, represented by self-administered questionnaire, have become an important aspect of clinical outcome assessment. To be used with different language groups and in different countries, questionnaires must be translated and adapted to new cultural characteristics and then validated by a widely accepted process to evaluate reliability and validity, fundamental characteristic for each measure. The aim of the study is to perform the cross-cultural adaptation and to assess the Italian version instrument reliability and validity. The study design is a cross-cultural adaptation and cross-sectional study of a sample of patients affected by shoulder disorder with a subsample followed prospectively for retest reliability. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form was culturally adapted for Italian-speaking people, following the simplified Guillemin criteria. Reliability and validity were assessed in a cross-sectional study of 50 consecutive patients affected by shoulder disorder. A sub-sample of 20 patients was followed prospectively for retest reliability. The results were compared with other validated patient-oriented measures. The ASES scales showed a high correlation with other patient-oriented measures, as hypothesized, and it also showed good values with regard to reproducibility, consistency and validity, to the original versions published in English. These findings suggest that the evaluation capacities of the Italian version of ASES are equivalent to those of English language version