This study identified a wide choice and usage of clinical rating systems in the elbow literature. Numerous studies reported measures without a history of either a specific pathology or cross-cultural validation. Interpretability and comparison of outcomes is dependent on the unification of outcome measure choice. This was not demonstrated currently.

BackgroundLateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common condition affecting adults. Although a lack of treatment consensus continues to prompt numerous effectiveness studies, there is a paucity of clear guidance on the choice of outcome measure. Our aim was to undertake a standardised evaluation of the available clinical rating systems that report patient-centred outcomes in LET.MethodsA systematic review of studies reporting the development, assessment of metric properties and/or use of instruments aiming to quantify LET-specific patient-centred outcome measures was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL (inception-2017) adhering to PRISMA guidance. The evidence for each instrument was independently assessed by two reviewers using the standardised evaluating measures of patient-reported outcomes (EMPRO) method evaluating overall and attribute-specific instrument performance (metric properties and usability). EMPRO scores > 50/100 were considered indicative of high performance.ResultsOut of 7261 references, we identified 105 articles reporting on 15 instruments for EMPRO analysis. Median performance score was 41.6 (range 21.6–72.5), with four instruments meeting high-performance criteria: quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand score (qDASH) (72.5), DASH (66.9), Oxford Elbow Score (OES) (66.6) and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) (57.0). One hundred seventy-nine articles reported instrument use internationally with DASH as the most frequent (29.7% articles) followed by PRTEE (25.6%), MEPS (15.1%) and qDASH (8.1%). The correlation between frequency of use and performance was r = 0.35 (95%CI − 0.11; 0.83).ConclusionsThis is the first study to provide standardised guidance on the choice of measures for LET. A large number of clinical rating systems are both available and being used for patients with LETs. Robust evidence is available for four measures, the DASH, QDASH, PRTEE and OES. The use of instruments in the literature is only in part explained by instrument performance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40798-019-0183-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Accurate assessment of distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) stability is increasingly recognized as an important part of clinical examination of the wrist. The ability of 30 specialist UK hand surgeons to clinically determine the stability of four volunteers’ wrists was assessed. Volunteers’ wrist stability had previously been confirmed with a validated measurement rig. Use of the wrist ballottement test as the primary examination technique yielded a positive predictive value of 81%, a negative predictive value of 55%, a specificity of 94% and a sensitivity of only 24%, for the detection of DRUJ instability. No correlation between background speciality (orthopaedic versus plastic surgery), nor years of clinical experience was found. Clinical assessment of DRUJ instability among experienced clinicians appears unreliable and instability is typically under recognized. Previous research to date using this clinical assessment method as a parameter of success is therefore brought into question. Level of evidence: IV

No abstract

No abstract