IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0182557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minimal important change and other measurement properties of the Oxford Elbow Score and the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand in patients with a simple elbow dislocation; validation study alongside the multicenter FuncSiE trial

Author

Listed:
  • Gijs I T Iordens
  • Dennis Den Hartog
  • Wim E Tuinebreijer
  • Denise Eygendaal
  • Niels W L Schep
  • Michael H J Verhofstad
  • Esther M M Van Lieshout
  • on behalf of FuncSiE Trial Investigators

Abstract

Study design: Validation study using data from a multicenter, randomized, clinical trial (RCT). Objectives: To evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important change (MIC) of the Dutch version of the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Quick-DASH) in patients with a simple elbow dislocation. Background: Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important for assessing outcome following elbow injuries, both in daily practice and in clinical research. However measurement properties of the OES and Quick-DASH in these patients are not fully known. Methods: OES and Quick-DASH were completed four times until one year after trauma. Mayo Elbow Performance Index, pain (VAS), Short Form-36, and EuroQol-5D were completed for comparison. Data of a multicenter RCT (n = 100) were used. Internal consistency was determined using Cronbach’s alpha. Construct and longitudinal validity were assessed by determining hypothesized strength of correlation between scores or changes in scores, respectively, of (sub)scales. Finally, floor and ceiling effects, MIC, and smallest detectable change (SDC) were determined. Results: OES and Quick-DASH demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α, 0.882 and 0.886, respectively). Construct validity and longitudinal validity of both scales were supported by >75% correctly hypothesized correlations. MIC and SDC were 8.2 and 12.0 point for OES, respectively. For Quick-DASH, these values were 11.7 and 25.0, respectively. Conclusions: OES and Quick-DASH are reliable, valid, and responsive instruments for evaluating elbow-related quality of life. The anchor-based MIC was 8.2 points for OES and 11.7 for Quick-DASH.

Suggested Citation

  • Gijs I T Iordens & Dennis Den Hartog & Wim E Tuinebreijer & Denise Eygendaal & Niels W L Schep & Michael H J Verhofstad & Esther M M Van Lieshout & on behalf of FuncSiE Trial Investigators, 2017. "Minimal important change and other measurement properties of the Oxford Elbow Score and the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand in patients with a simple elbow dislocation; validation st," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-17, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182557
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182557
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182557&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0182557?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.