Abstract
Purpose
To assess the responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) using anchor- and distribution-based approaches.
Methods
A prospective observational study of 104 patients undergoing elbow surgery at a specialist orthopaedic hospital was carried out. Patients completed the OES and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaires (both scored on a 0 to 100 scale) pre- and 6 months post-surgery. Transition items (used as anchors) assessed perceived changes following surgery. Indicators of responsiveness were the effect size; the anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and best cut-point on the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve; and the distribution-based minimal detectable change (MDC).
Results
The three elbow-specific OES scales (Function, Pain, Social-Psychological) produced generally larger effect sizes (0.79, 1.14 and 1.18, respectively) than the upper-limb-specific DASH scale (0.76). Clear associations were observed between transition items and all OES and DASH scores (all r > |0.35|). The MCIDs for the OES Function scale and the DASH were similar (≈10), but were larger for the OES Pain and Social-Psychological scales (≈18), reflecting their lower (i.e. poorer) baseline scores and larger effect sizes. The MCIDs were, however, only consistently larger than the MDCs for the OES Pain domain. The OES Function scale and the DASH performed similarly on ROC analysis, but with the OES Pain and Social-Psychological scales demonstrating superior efficiency.
Conclusions
For elbow surgery, the 12-item three-scale OES is highly responsive to 6-month post-operative outcomes, with its performance being generally better than that of the 30-item one-scale DASH. Study estimates of minimal change for the OES may be useful for informing sample size calculations and interpreting outcomes in future clinical trials.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pynsent, P., Fairbank, J. C. T., & Carr, A. (1993). Outcome measures in orthopaedics. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Murray, D., & Carr, A. (1996). The problem of ‘noise’ in monitoring patient-based outcomes: generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 1, 224–231.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Carr, A., & Murray, D. (1996). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 78, 185–190.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Murray, D., & Carr, A. (1998). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 80, 63–69. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., & Carr, A. (1996). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 78, 593–600.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., & Carr, A. (1999). The assessment of shoulder instability. The development and validation of a questionnaire. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 81, 420–426.
Khan, F., Ng, L., Gonzalez, S., Hale, T., & Turner-Stokes, L. (2008). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes following joint replacement at the hip and knee in chronic arthropathy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online : Update Software), 2:CD004957. Review.
Huber, W., Hofstaetter, J. G., Hanslik-Schnabel, B., Posch, M., & Wurnig, C. (2004). The German version of the Oxford Shoulder Score—cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 124, 531–536. doi:10.1007/s00402-004-0716-z.
Canterbury District Health Board (DHB) (2007) New Zealand National Joint Register. Home page at: http://www.cdhb.govt.nz/NJR/. Canterbury DHB, New Zealand.
Hudak, P. L., Amadio, P. C., & 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). American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29, 602–608. Published erratum appears in Am J Ind Med 1996 Sep;30(3):372. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L.
King, G. J. W., Richards, R. R., Zuckerman, J. D., Blasier, R., Dillman, C., Friedman, R. J., et al. (1999). A standardized method for assessment of elbow function. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 8, 351–354. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(99)90159-3.
Overend, T. J., Wuori-Fearn, J. L., Kramer, J. F., & MacDermid, J. C. (1999). Reliability of a patient-rated forearm evaluation questionnaire for patients with lateral epicondylitis. Journal of Hand Therapy, 12, 31–37.
Sathyamoorthy, P., Kemp, G. J., Rawal, V., Rayner, V., & Frostick, S. P. (2004). Development and validation of an elbow score. Rheumatology (Oxford), 43, 1434–1440. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh367.
Dawson, J., Doll, H., Boller, I., Fitzpatrick, R., Little, C., Rees, J., et al. (2008). The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 90, 466–473. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B4.20290.
Beaton, D. E. (2000). Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine, 25, 3192–3199. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00015.
Terwee, C. B., Dekker, F. W., Wiersinga, W. M., Prummel, M. F., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003). On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12, 349–362. doi:10.1023/A:1023499322593.
Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171–178. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5.
Liang, M. H. (2000). Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Medical Care, 38, II84–II90. doi:10.1097/00005650-200009002-00013.
Hays, R. D., & Hadorn, D. (1992). Responsiveness to change: an aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Quality of Life Research, 1, 73–75. doi:10.1007/BF00435438.
Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 861–873. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2.
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley.
de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Ostelo, R. W., Beckerman, H., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 54. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-54.
Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986). Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 39, 897–906. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-X.
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
SPSS Inc. (2007) SPSS statistical software: release 15.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
StataCorp. (2007). Stata statistical software: release 10. College Station, TX: StataCorp.
Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27, S178–S189. doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015.
Cohen, J. (1997). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic derived curves from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839–843.
Riddle, D. L., Stratford, P. W., & Binkley, J. M. (1998). Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Physical Therapy, 78, 1197–1207.
Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J. M., & Riddle, D. L. (1996). Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Physical Therapy, 76, 1109–1123.
Beaton, D. E., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., Wright, J. G., Tarasuk, V., & Bombardier, C. (2001). Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. Journal of Hand Therapy, 14, 128–146.
Kovacs, F. M., Abraira, V., Royuela, A., Corcoll, J., Alegre, L., Tomás M, et al. (2008). Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 9, 43. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-9-43.
Kennedy, D. M., Stratford, P. W., Wessel, J., Gollish, J. D., & Penney, D. (2005). Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 6, 3. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-6-3.
Diehr, P., Chen, L., Patrick, D., Feng, Z., & Yasui, Y. (2005). Reliability, effect size, and responsiveness of health status measures in the design of randomized and cluster-randomized trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26, 45–58. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2004.11.014.
Sloan, J., Symonds, T., Vargas-Chanes, D., & Fridley, B. (2003). Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Information Journal, 37, 23–31.
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41, 582–592. doi:10.1097/00005650-200305000-00004.
Guyatt, G. H., Juniper, E. F., Walter, S. D., Griffith, L. E., & Goldstein, R. S. (1998). Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 316, 690–693.
Guyatt, G., & Schunemann, H. (2007). How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Quality of Life Research, 16, 1097–1105. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9223-3.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of the patients who contributed their views and time to this study.
Conflict of interest
This study received no external funding and none of the authors have any conflict of interest in relation to the study/paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
The Oxford Elbow Score (OES) questionnaire:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dawson, J., Doll, H., Boller, I. et al. Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery. Qual Life Res 17, 1257–1267 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9409-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9409-3