2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2004.12.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modification of the Constant–Murley shoulder score—introduction of the individual relative Constant score

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
56
0
5

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
56
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…17,20 The Constant Score may be biased when used in a heterogeneous group, in particular given the high weighting for the strength component. 32,33 To correct this bias, the relative Constant Score to account for age is used. 34 In our study, the strength and Constant Score of the affected side were compared to those of the non-affected side.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17,20 The Constant Score may be biased when used in a heterogeneous group, in particular given the high weighting for the strength component. 32,33 To correct this bias, the relative Constant Score to account for age is used. 34 In our study, the strength and Constant Score of the affected side were compared to those of the non-affected side.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Multiple modifications were made after the development of the initial scoring system because of concerns regarding reliability, correlation with other shoulder scores, scoring methods that increase the risk for bias, and variability in objective testing measures [20][21][22] . The minimal clinically important difference is unknown.…”
Section: The Constant Shoulder Scorementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This modification of the CMS has been previously used and validated to allow a relative strength component to be calculated using the other shoulder as a comparator assumed to be normal for that individual. 19 Separate to the items required for the FSS and CMS, participants were also required to complete an 'improvement scale' pertaining to overall change in the qualitative status of their shoulder after surgery ( Figure 2). Patients could indicate whether their shoulder was 'much better', 'better', 'same', 'worse' or 'much worse'.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%