Joshua I. Vincent

Validity and Sensitivity to Change of Patient-Reported Pain and Disability Measures for Elbow Pathologies

STUDY DESIGN Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the internal consistency, concurrent construct validity, longitudinal validity, sensitivity to change, and factor structure of the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation form (PREE), the patient-reported form of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Elbow Questionnaire (pASES-e), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) in a diverse group of patients who had surgery for various elbow pathologies. BACKGROUND Measuring functional outcomes after surgical procedures of the elbow requires valid patient-reported pain and disability questionnaires. The PREE, the pASES-e, and the DASH are commonly used questionnaires. There is, however, insufficient evidence available concerning their validity and sensitivity to change. METHODS Data were prospectively collected from 128 patients (mean ± SD age, 46.5 ± 12.8 years) post-elbow surgery. Patients completed the PREE, the pASES-e, the DASH, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey at baseline (first visit after surgery) and 6 months postsurgery. Concurrent construct validity, longitudinal validity, sensitivity to change, and factor structure were analyzed. RESULTS Concurrent construct validity was demonstrated by confirmation of expected relationships; the strongest correlations were observed between the PREE pain score, the PREE total score, the pASES-e pain score, and the DASH score (r = 0.73-0.87). The pASES-e function score correlated the least with other constructs. Longitudinal validity demonstrated similar findings: the pASES-e pain change score and PREE change score were most strongly correlated, and the pASES-e function change score and DASH change score were moderately to weakly correlated. All 3 patient-reported questionnaires demonstrated a large effect size and standardized response means greater than 1.0. Structural validity was supported for the PREE (R2 = 77.2%, 4 factors) and the pASES-e (R2 = 74.4%, 4 factors), but not for the DASH (R2 = 71.3%, 5 factors). CONCLUSION The PREE, the pASES-e, and the DASH have acceptable validity and sensitivity to change. The pASES-e function subscale is the least sensitive to change and is less correlated to other measures.

A Survey of Practice Patterns for Rehabilitation Post Elbow Fracture

Background and Purpose: Elbow fractures amount to 4.3% of all the fractures. The elbow is prone to stiffness after injury and fractures can often lead to significant functional impairment. Rehabilitation is commonly used to restore range of motion (ROM) and function. Practice patterns in elbow fracture rehabilitation have not been defined. The purpose of this study was to describe current elbow fracture rehabilitation practices; and compare those to the existing evidence base. Methods: Hand therapists (n=315) from the USA (92%) and Canada (8%) completed a web-based survey on their practice patterns and beliefs related to the acute (0-6 weeks) and functional (6-12 weeks) phases of elbow fracture rehabilitation. Results: More than 99% of respondents agreed that fracture severity, co-morbidities, time since fracture, compliance with an exercise program, psychological factors, and occupational demands are important prognostic indicators for optimal function. Strong agreement was found with the use of patient education (95%) and active ROM (86%) in the acute stage while, home exercise programs (99%), active ROM (99%), stretching (97%), strengthening (97%), functional activities (ADLs and routine tasks) (97%), passive ROM (95%), and active assisted ROM (95%) were generally used in the functional stage. The most commonly used impairment measures were goniometry (99%), Jamar dynamometry (97%), and hand held dynamometry (97%). Agreement on the use of patient-reported outcome measures was very minimal (1.3%- 35.6%). Conclusions: Exercise, education, and functional activity have high consensus as components of elbo fracture rehabilitation. Future research should focus on defining the optimal dosage and type of exercise/activity, and establish core measures to monitor outcomes of these interventions.

Translation of Oswestry Disability Index into Tamil with Cross Cultural Adaptation and Evaluation of Reliability and Validity

Study Design: Prospective longitudinal validation study Objective: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to the Tamil language (ODI-T), and to evaluate its reliability and construct validity. Summary of Background Data: ODI is widely used as a disease specific questionnaire in back pain patients to evaluate pain and disability. A thorough literature search revealed that the Tamil version of the ODI has not been previously published. Methods: The ODI was translated and cross-culturally adapted to the Tamil language according to established guidelines. 30 subjects (16 women and 14 men) with a mean age of 42.7 years (S.D. 13.6; Range 22 - 69) with low back pain were recruited to assess the psychometric properties of the ODI-T Questionnaire. Patients completed the ODI-T, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), VAS-pain and VAS-disability at baseline and 24-72 hours from the baseline visit. Results: The ODI-T displayed a high degree of internal consistency, with a Cronbachs alpha of 0.92. The test-retest reliability was high (n=30) with an ICC of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.96) and a mean re-test difference of 2.6 points lower on re-test. The ODI-T scores exhibited a strong correlation with the RMDQ scores (r = 0.82) p<0.01, VAS-P (r = 0.78) p<0.01 and VAS-D (r = 0.81) p<0.01. Moderate to low correlations were observed between the ODI-T and lumbar ROM (r = -0.27 to -0.53). All the hypotheses that were constructed apriori were supported. Conclusion: The Tamil version of the ODI Questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to measure subjective outcomes of pain and disability in Tamil speaking patients with low back pain.

Rasch analysis of the Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation questionnaire

BackgroundThe Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) was developed as an elbow joint specific measure of pain and disability and validated with classical psychometric methods. More recently, Rasch analysis has contributed new methods for analyzing the clinical measurement properties of self-report outcome measures. The objective of the study was to determine aspects of validity of the PREE using the Rasch model to assess the overall fit of the PREE data, the response scaling, individual item fit, differential item functioning (DIF), local dependency, unidimensionality and person separation index (PSI).MethodsA convenience sample of 236 patients (Age range 21–79 years; M: F- 97:139) with elbow disorders were recruited from the Roth│McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, London, Ontario, Canada. The baseline scores of the PREE were used. Rasch analysis was conducted using RUMM 2030 software on the 3 sub scales of the PREE separately.ResultsThe 3 sub scales showed misfit initially with disordered thresholds on17 out of 20 items), uniform DIF was observed for two items (“Carrying a 10lbs object” from specific activities subscale for age group; and “household work” from the usual activities subscale for gender); multidimensionality and local dependency. The Pain subscale satisfied Rasch expectations when item 2 “Pain – At rest” was split for age group, while the usual activities subscale readily stood up to Rasch requirements when the item 2 “household work” was split for gender. The specific activities subscale demonstrated fit to the Rasch model when sub test analysis accounted for local dependency. All three subscales of the PREE were well targeted and had high reliability (PSI >0.80).ConclusionThe three subscales of the PREE appear to be robust when tested against the Rasch model when subject to a few alterations. The value of changing the 0–10 format is questionable given its widespread use; further Rasch-based analysis of whether these findings are stable in other samples is warranted.

The Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE)

The Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) is a 20 item patient-reported outcome questionnaire that measures elbow-related pain and disability of the affected upper extremity (MacDermid 2001). Its framework is consistent to its wrist counterpart Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) (MacDermid et al 1998). The 20 items are categorised under 3 subscales. Five items fall under the pain subscale; the remaining items measure functional disability. The specific activity subscale contains 11 of these items and addresses specific tasks which are difficult with elbow conditions; the final four items address areas of usual role performance (personal care, household work, occupational work, and recreation) in relation to the previous capability/ role.

A Literature Synthesis Indicates Very Low Quality, but Consistent Evidence of Improvements in Function after Surgical Interventions for Primary Osteoarthritis of the Elbow

Background. Primary osteoarthritis of the elbow is a debilitating disease with an overall incidence of about 2%. Pain and reduced motion (ROM) lead to disability and loss of functional independence. Purpose. To critically review the literature on patient-related important functional outcomes (pain, ROMs and functional recovery) after surgery for primary OA of the elbow, utilizing the 2011 OCEBM levels of evidence. Design. A literature synthesis. Results. Twenty-six articles satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 25 of the studies were at level IV evidence, and 1 at level III. All three surgical techniques led to improvement in pain, ROM, and functional recovery in the short- and medium-term follow-up. Long-term follow-up results, available only for open joint debridement, showed recurrence of osteoarthritic signs on X-ray with minimal loss of motion. Recently, there seems to be an increased focus on arthroscopic debridement. Conclusion. The quality of research addressing surgical interventions is very low, including total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). However, the evidence concurs that open and arthroscopic joint debridement can improve function in patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the elbow. TEA is reserved for treating severe joint destruction, mostly for elderly individuals with low physical demands when other intervention options have failed.

The Reliability and Validity of the Computerized Double Inclinometer in Measuring Lumbar Mobility

Study Design : Repeated measures reliability/validity study. Objectives : To determine the concurrent validity, test-retest, inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of lumbar flexion and extension measurements using the Tracker M.E. computerized dual inclinometer (CDI) in comparison to the modified-modified Schober (MMS) Summary of Background : Numerous studies have evaluated the reliability and validity of the various methods of measuring spinal motion, but the results are inconsistent. Differences in equipment and techniques make it difficult to correlate results. Methods : Twenty subjects with back pain and twenty without back pain were selected through convenience sampling. Two examiners measured sagittal plane lumbar range of motion for each subject. Two separate tests with the CDI and one test with the MMS were conducted. Each test consisted of three trials. Instrument and examiner order was randomly assigned. Intra-class correlations (ICCs 2, 2 and 2, 2) and Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were used to calculate reliability and concurrent validity respectively. Results : Intra-trial reliability was high to very high for both the CDI (ICCs 0.85 - 0.96) and MMS (ICCs 0.84 - 0.98). However, the reliability was poor to moderate, when the CDI unit had to be repositioned either by the same rate (ICCs 0.16 - 0.59) or a different rater (ICCs 0.45 - 0.52). Inter-rater reliability for the MMS was moderate to high (ICCs 0.75 - 0.82) which bettered the moderate correlation obtained for the CDI (ICCs 0.45 - 0.52). Correlations between the CDI and MMS were poor for flexion (0.32; p<0.05) and poor to moderate (-0.42 - -0.51; p<0.05) for extension measurements. Conclusion : When using the CDI, an average of subsequent tests is required to obtain moderate reliability. The MMS was highly reliable than the CDI. The MMS and the CDI measure lumbar movement on a different metric that are not highly related to each other.

An evaluation of the structural validity of the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) using the Rasch model

PurposeThe shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) has been extensively evaluated for its psychometric properties using classical test theory (CTT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate its structural validity using Rasch model analysis.MethodsResponses to the SPADI from 1030 patients referred for physiotherapy with shoulder pain and enrolled in a prospective cohort study were available for Rasch model analysis. Overall fit, individual person and item fit, response format, dependence, unidimensionality, targeting, reliability and differential item functioning (DIF) were examined.ResultsThe SPADI pain subscale initially demonstrated a misfit due to DIF by age and gender. After iterative analysis it showed good fit to the Rasch model with acceptable targeting and unidimensionality (overall fit Chi-square statistic 57.2, p = 0.1; mean item fit residual 0.19 (1.5) and mean person fit residual 0.44 (1.1); person separation index (PSI) of 0.83. The disability subscale however shows significant misfit due to uniform DIF even after iterative analyses were used to explore different solutions to the sources of misfit (overall fit (Chi-square statistic 57.2, p = 0.1); mean item fit residual 0.54 (1.26) and mean person fit residual 0.38 (1.0); PSI 0.84).ConclusionsRasch Model analysis of the SPADI has identified some strengths and limitations not previously observed using CTT methods. The SPADI should be treated as two separate subscales. The SPADI is a widely used outcome measure in clinical practice and research; however, the scores derived from it must be interpreted with caution. The pain subscale fits the Rasch model expectations well. The disability subscale does not fit the Rasch model and its current format does not meet the criteria for true interval-level measurement required for use as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. Clinicians should therefore exercise caution when interpreting score changes on the disability subscale and attempt to compare their scores to age- and sex-stratified data.