Advertisement

Types of Scoring Instruments Available

  • José F. Vega
  • Kurt P. SpindlerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

A myriad of scoring instruments exist for use in clinical research. Choosing the appropriate scoring instrument for a study is difficult and requires at least a basic understanding of the instruments available and the pros and cons of each. However, no single scoring instrument is capable of capturing all of the information from a well-designed study, and, thus, the instruments described in this chapter are regularly used in combination. New scoring instruments are constantly being developed. This chapter is meant to serve as an overview of the different types of scoring instruments that currently exist, with special attention devoted to reviewing the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that have been recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

References

  1. 1.
    Abrams GD, Harris JD, Gupta AK, et al. Functional performance testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(1):2325967113518305.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967113518305.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angst F, Schwyzer H-K, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(S11):S174–88.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartlett JW, Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(4):466–75.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(5):1038–46.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bekkers JEJ, de Windt TS, Raijmakers NJH, Dhert WJA, Saris DBF. Validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the treatment of focal cartilage lesions. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17(11):1434–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berlowitz DR, Foy CG, Kazis LE, et al. Effect of intensive blood-pressure treatment on patient-reported outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(8):733–44.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1611179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhatt A. Evolution of clinical research: a history before and beyond James Lind. Perspect Clin Res. 2010;1(1):6–10.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyer P, Djian P, Christel P, Paoletti X, Degeorges R. [Reliability of the KT-1000 arthrometer (Medmetric) for measuring anterior knee laxity: comparison with Telos in 147 knees]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2004;90(8):757–64.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brand RA. Ernest Amory Codman, MD, 1869–1940. Clin Orthop. 2009;467(11):2763–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1047-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Briggs KK, Steadman JR, Hay CJ, Hines SL. Lysholm score and Tegner activity level in individuals with normal knees. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(5):898–901.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508330149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Browne JP, Cano SJ, Smith S. Using patient-reported outcome measures to improve health care: time for a new approach. Med Care. 2017;55(10):901.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000792.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carcia CR, Martin RL, Drouin JM. Validity of the foot and ankle ability measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2008;43(2):179–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Codman EA. The classic: the registry of bone sarcomas as an example of the end-result idea in hospital organization. Clin Orthop. 2009;467(11):2766–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1048-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Collier R. Legumes, lemons and streptomycin: a short history of the clinical trial. Can Med Assoc J. 2009;180(1):23–4.  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.081879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collins NJ, Prinsen CA, Christensen R, Bartels EM, Terwee CB, Roos EM. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2016;24(8):1317–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2016.03.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis JC, Bryan S. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have arrived in sports and exercise medicine: why do they matter? Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(24):1545–6.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-093707.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(4):593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dawson J, Rogers K, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The Oxford shoulder score revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(1):119–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0549-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eechaute C, Vaes P, Van Aerschot L, Asman S, Duquet W. The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:6.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-8-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Emerson Kavchak AJ, Cook C, Hegedus EJ, Wright AA. Identification of cut-points in commonly used hip osteoarthritis-related outcome measures that define the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). Rheumatol Int. 2013;33(11):2773–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-013-2813-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Engelhart L, Nelson L, Lewis S, et al. Validation of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score subscales for patients with articular cartilage lesions of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(10):2264–72.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512457646.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):331–42.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0907797.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ. 2002;324(7351):1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greco NJ, Anderson AF, Mann BJ, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in comparison to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in patients with focal articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(5):891–902.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509354163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hains F, Waalen J, Mior S. Psychometric properties of the neck disability index. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1998;21(2):75–80.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hale SA, Hertel J. Reliability and sensitivity of the foot and ankle disability index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2005;40(1):35–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):873–80.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Higgins LD, Taylor MK, Park D, et al. Reliability and validity of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form. Joint Bone Spine. 2007;74(6):594–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2007.01.036.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hu Y, Lv G, Ren S, Johansen D. Mid- to long-term outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of eight prospective randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0149312.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149312.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hudak PL, Amadio PC, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ingelsrud LH, Granan L-P, Terwee CB, Engebretsen L, Roos EM. Proportion of patients reporting acceptable symptoms or treatment failure and their associated KOOS values at 6 to 24 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(8):1902–7.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515584041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, et al. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(5):600–13.  https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465010290051301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(10):1567–73.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546506288855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson DS, Smith RB. Outcome measurement in the ACL deficient knee—what’s the score? Knee. 2001;8(1):51–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jones D, Kazis L, Lee A, et al. Health status assessments using the veterans SF-12 and SF-36: methods for evaluating otucomes in the Veterans Health Administration. J Ambul Care Manage. 2001;24(3):68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kazis LE, Ren XS, Lee A, et al. Health status in VA patients: results from the Veterans Health Study. Am J Med Qual. 1999;14(1):28–38.  https://doi.org/10.1177/106286069901400105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(10):1109–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2003.10.030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kirkley A, Griffin S, McLintock H, Ng L. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(6):764–72.  https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465980260060501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Klässbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol. 2003;32(1):46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kohn MD, Sassoon AA, Fernando ND. Classifications in brief: Kellgren-Lawrence classification of osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop. 2016;474(8):1886–93.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4732-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(Suppl 3):iii40–1.  https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.079798.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Laucis NC, Hays RD, Bhattacharyya T. Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a brief guide. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(19):1628–34.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.O.00030.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lyman S, Lee Y-Y, Franklin PD, Li W, Cross MB, Padgett DE. Validation of the KOOS, JR: a short-form knee arthroplasty outcomes survey. Clin Orthop. 2016;474(6):1461–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4719-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lyman S, Lee Y-Y, Franklin PD, Li W, Mayman DJ, Padgett DE. Validation of the HOOS, JR: a short-form hip replacement survey. Clin Orthop. 2016;474(6):1472–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4718-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(2):72–84.  https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2007.2403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM. Evidence of validity for the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(11):968–83.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070502601113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marx RG, Stump TJ, Jones EC, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(2):213–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2002;11(6):587–94.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2002.127096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Muller B, Yabroudi MA, Lynch A, et al. Defining thresholds for the patient acceptable symptom state for the IKDC Subjective Knee Form and KOOS for patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(11):2820–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516652888.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)—validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-4-10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nilsson-Helander K, Thomeé R, Silbernagel KG, et al. The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS): development and validation. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):421–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546506294856.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Oak SR, Strnad GJ, Bena J, et al. Responsiveness comparison of the EQ-5D, PROMIS Global Health, and VR-12 questionnaires in knee arthroscopy. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(12):2325967116674714.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967116674714.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Peterfy CG, Guermazi A, Zaim S, et al. Whole-organ magnetic resonance imaging score (WORMS) of the knee in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2004;12(3):177–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2003.11.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pietrosimone B, Luc BA, Duncan A, Saliba SA, Hart JM, Ingersoll CD. Association between the single assessment numeric evaluation and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. J Athl Train. 2017;52(6):526–33.  https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-52.5.07.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Provencher MT, Frank RM, Macian D, et al. An analysis of shoulder outcomes scores in 275 consecutive patients: disease-specific correlation across multiple shoulder conditions. Mil Med. 2012;177(8):975–82.  https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-11-00234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Radcliff K, Davis RJ, Hisey MS, et al. Long-term evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© cervical disc: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial with seven-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2017;11:31.  https://doi.org/10.14444/4031.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 1994;3(6):347–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80019-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(10):788–94.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070102201004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28(2):88–96.  https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Samuelsen BT, Webster KE, Johnson NR, Hewett TE, Krych AJ. Hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon autograft for ACL reconstruction: is there a difference in graft failure rate? A meta-analysis of 47,613 patients. Clin Orthop. 2017;475(10):2459–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5278-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schalet BD, Rothrock NE, Hays RD, et al. Linking physical and mental health summary scores from the veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) to the PROMIS® Global Health Scale. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(10):1524–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3453-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schmidt S, Franke J, Rauschmann M, Adelt D, Bonsanto MM, Sola S. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with 2-year follow-up to compare the performance of decompression with and without interlaminar stabilization. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.11.SPINE17643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Shelbourne KD, Barnes AF, Gray T. Correlation of a single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating with modified Cincinnati knee rating system and IKDC subjective total scores for patients after ACL reconstruction or knee arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(11):2487–91.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512458576.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Smith MV, Calfee RP, Baumgarten KM, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(3):277–85.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01744.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Spindler KP, Huston LJ. O’Donoghue Sports Injury Award 10 year outcomes and risk factors after ACL reconstruction: a multicenter cohort study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(7 Suppl 6):2325967117S00247.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117S00247.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Spindler KP, Kuhn JE, Freedman KB, Matthews CE, Dittus RS, Harrell FE. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction autograft choice: bone-tendon-bone versus hamstring: does it really matter? A systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(8):1986–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sur RL, Dahm P. History of evidence-based medicine. Indian J Urol. 2011;27(4):487–9.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.91438.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Svensson M, Sernert N, Ejerhed L, Karlsson J, Kartus JT. A prospective comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone and hamstring grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in female patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(3):278–86.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-005-0708-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Perrin E, Zubkoff M. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA. 1989;262(7):925–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop. 1985;198:43–9.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409–15.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC. Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(2):214–21.  https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465990270021701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Williams GN, Taylor DC, Gangel TJ, Uhorchak JM, Arciero RA. Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and the Lysholm score. Clin Orthop. 2000;373:184–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wright AA, Hensley CP, Gilbertson J, Leland JM III, Jackson S. Defining patient acceptable symptom state thresholds for commonly used patient reported outcomes measures in general orthopedic practice. Man Ther. 2015;20(6):814–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.03.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wright RW, Baumgarten KM. Shoulder outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(7):436–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wright RW, Ross JR, Haas AK, et al. Osteoarthritis classification scales: interobserver reliability and arthroscopic correlation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(14):1145–51.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00929.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Younis F, Sultan J, Dix S, Hughes PJ. The range of the Oxford Shoulder Score in the asymptomatic population: a marker for post-operative improvement. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;93(8):629–33.  https://doi.org/10.1308/003588411X13165261994193.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(1):CD010264.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010264.pub2.
  81. 81.
    Zimerman AL. Evidence-based medicine: a short history of a modern medical movement. Virtual Mentor. 2013;15(1):71.  https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.1.mhst1-1301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of MedicineClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Cleveland Clinic Sports Health CenterGarfield HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations