Dataset Information

The Chinese version of the American shoulder and elbow surgeons standardized shoulder assessment form questionnaire, patient self-report section: a cross-cultural adaptation and validation study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The patient self-report section of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASESp) is one of the most validated and reliable assessment tools. This study aimed to establish a validated Chinese version of ASESp (ASESp-CH).

Methods

A clinical prospective study was performed (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04755049; registered on 2021/02/11). Following the guidelines of forward-backward translation and cross-cultural adaptation, a Chinese version of ASESp was established. Patients older than 18 years with shoulder disorders were included. Patients who could not complete test-retest questionnaires within the interval of 7-30 days and patients who received interventions were excluded. Intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated for test- retest reliability, whereas internal consistency was determined by Cronbach value. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing the corresponding domains between the ASESp-CH and a validated Chinese version of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36).

Results

A total of 86 patients were included with a mean test-retest interval of 12 ± 5.4 days. Test-retest reliability was excellent with an ICC of 0.94. Good internal consistency was found, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.86. Construct validity of the ASESp-CH questionnaire was good. The major domains of the ASESp-CH were significantly correlated with the respective domains in the SF-36 (p < 0.01), except for the domain of stability of ASESp-CH.

Conclusions

The Chinese version of ASESp questionnaire is a highly validated and reliable tool for shoulder disorder assessment.

SUBMITTER: Tie TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8070278 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Oxford Elbow Score (OES) is an English-language questionnaire specifically designed to evaluate surgical elbow outcomes. This scoring system has been translated into other languages. Given the lack of an Italian version of the OES, the present study was designed to establish, culturally adapt, and validate the Italian version.MethodsThe OES questionnaire was culturally adapted to Italian patients in accordance with the literature guidelines with a pilot phase including seven patients with elbow problems and seven healthy subjects. The study includes 110 participants from three hospitals, who underwent elbow surgery for acute (70%) or chronic diseases. At least one month after elbow surgery, at the "index visit", the physician completed the Mayo Elbow Performance Index and patients completed the following questionnaires: the Italian OES, the shortened version of the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and the Short-Form 36 Health Survey. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Reproducibility was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient in ten patients who completed the OES again two-three days after the index visit. Construct validity was assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. Responsiveness was evaluated in 68 patients who answered the questionnaires four months after the index visit, using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the effect size and the standardized response mean calculation.ResultsCronbach's alpha was excellent: 0.86 (0.82-0.90) for OES pain, 0.92 (0.90-0.94) for OES function, and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for OES social/psychological. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.94 (0.78-0.98) for OES pain, 0.91 (0.71-0.97) for OES function, 0.95 (0.83-0.98) for OES social-psychological and 0.93 (0.76-0.98) for OES total. The Spearman ρ was >0.7 for OES pain and QuickDASH, for OES function and both QuickDASH and Mayo Elbow Performance Index, and for OES social-psychological and QuickDASH. Regarding responsiveness, the mean of the changes between the two visits ranged from 33.9 for OES pain, to 44 points for OES function and OES social/psychological. The effect size and the standardized response mean were >0.8 for all OES domains.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that the Italian version of the OES, translated in accordance with the international standardized guidelines, is reliable, valid, and responsive in patients who have undergone elbow surgery.

Project description:BackgroundRotator cuff tears are a common cause of shoulder pain and can result in prolonged periods of pain, disability and absence from work. Rotator cuff repair surgery is increasingly used in an attempt to resolve symptoms but has failure rates of around 40%. There is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff repairs. Patch augmentation increasingly being used within the NHS in an attempt to reduce repair failures. The aim of this survey was to determine current UK practice and opinion relating to the factors that influence choice of patch, current patient selection and willingness to assist with generation of improved evidence.MethodsAn online survey was sent to the surgeon members of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society (BESS). Questions covered respondent demographics, experience with patches, indications for patch augmentation and willingness to be involved in a randomised trial of patch augmented rotator cuff surgery.ResultsThe response rate was 105/550 (19%). 58% of respondents had used a patch to augment rotator cuff surgery. 70% of patch users had undertaken an augmented repair within the last 6 months. A wide surgical experience in augmentation was reported (ranging 1 to 200 implants used). However, most surgeons reported low volume usage, with a median of 5 rotator cuff augmentation procedures performed. At least 10 different products had been used. Most of the patches used were constructed from human decellularised dermis tissue, although porcine derived and synthetic based patches had also been used. Only 3-5% stated they would undertake an augmented repair for small tears across ages, whereas 28-40% and 19-59% would do so for large or massive tears respectively. When assessing patient suitability, patient age seemed relevant only for those with large and massive tears. Half of the surgeons reported an interest in taking part in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the role of patch augmentation for rotator cuff surgery, with a further 22% of respondent's undecided.ConclusionsA variety of patches have been used by surgeons to augment rotator cuff repair with a wide range of operator experience. There was substantial uncertainty about which patch to use and differing views on which patients were most suitable. There is a clear need for robust clinical evaluation and further research in this area.