The Oxford shoulder score revisited
- 1.4k Downloads
The validated, patient-reported Oxford shoulder score (OSS) was introduced around 10 years ago, primarily for the assessment of outcomes of shoulder surgery (excluding shoulder stabilisation) in randomised trials. Its uptake has steadily increased in a number of countries and its use has also been extended. Recently a number of issues have been raised in relation to other related patient-reported outcome measures which were devised around the same time as the OSS. This included recommendations to change the scoring system. This paper reviews issues concerning patient-reported outcome measures that apply to the OSS and makes some recommendations (including changes to the scoring system) as to how it should be used.
KeywordsShoulder Outcome score Shoulder surgery Oxford shoulder score Patient-reported outcomes
Regarding the secondary data analysis conducted to inform the table in this paper. The original study that generated these data was conducted in the early 1990s and we wish to acknowledge receipt of funding for that study by grant from Oxford Regional Health Authority (Audit). These data were retained in an anonymised form. The study complied with the laws of the UK, which at that time, did not require informed consent from patients for a purely observational study, as completion of a questionnaire was accepted as implicit consent.
Conflict of interest statement
None of the authors have any conflict of interest in relation to this paper.
- 1.Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 78:593–600Google Scholar
- 2.Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop (214):160–164Google Scholar
- 3.Lippitt SB, Harryman DT, Matsen FA (1993) A practical tool for evaluating function: the simple shoulder test. The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stability. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, pp 501–518Google Scholar
- 5.Pynsent P, Fairbank JTC, Carr A (1993) Outcome measures in orthopaedics. 1st edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 11.Carr AJ, Fitzpatrick R, Gray A, Dawson J, Norrie J, Campbell M, Ramsay C, Rees J, Moser J (2007) United Kingdom Rotator Cuff Study (UKUFF trial) 01/05/2007–30/04/2012. Web-site: https://viis.abdn.ac.uk/HSRU/UKUFF/Site/Public/Default.aspx. HTA reference 05/47/02. Funded by the Department of Health
- 12.New Zealand National Joint Registry (2007) Canterbury District Health Board, New Zealand. http://www.cdhb.govt.nz/NJR/
- 13.Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 78:185–190Google Scholar
- 15.Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 89-B:1010–1014Google Scholar
- 16.Unit of Health-Care Epidemiology (2007) See Oxford Orthopaedic scores link on patient-reported health instruments. University of Oxford, web-site http://phi.uhce.ox.ac.uk/
- 23.Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) (corrected). The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG) [Published erratum appears in Am J Ind Med (1996) 30(3):372]. Am J Ind Med 29(6):602–608Google Scholar
- 26.Wright JG, Rudicel S, Feinstein AR (1994) Ask patients what they want. Evaluation of individual complaints before total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 76(2):229–234Google Scholar
- 42.Fayers PM, Machin D (2000) Quality of life—assessment, analysis and interpretation. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar