Psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation of the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE); a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shafiee, Erfan; MacDermid, Joy C.; Walton, David M.; Vincent, Joshua I.; Grewal, Ruby

doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.1938248

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sixty unique instruments were identified from the first systematic review and included in survey 1 (table 2). From survey 1, three measures: pain on gripping, Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE)14–16 and Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH),17 were the only ones reaching ≥70% for both the patient and the clinician/researcher groups. The Patient Specific Function Scale18 (function domain) and Tennis Elbow Functional Scale19 (both pain domains) were voted to be in the COS-LET by patients who commented favourably on the scores’ item level face validity—however, the lack of robust psychometric evaluation in LET populations precluded their inclusion following clinician/researcher evaluation (table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The additional instruments proposed by responders in survey 1 had no psychometric data for the LET population and were not considered further in the development of the COS-LET. Seven instruments had an EMPRO score of ≥40 and received ≥70% of votes in survey 1 from either patients or clinicians/researchers—they were: DASH,17 20–22 Quick DASH,17 23 24 Oxford Elbow Score,25 26 PRTEE,14–16 Tennis Elbow Functional Scale,19 as well as grip strength 27–29. These were then independently assessed by the steering committee using the OMERACT truth (part b) and discrimination filters (results given in online supplemental file 2), which along with results from survey 1, were available to inform clinician’s/researcher’s decisions in survey 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of a core outcome set for lateral elbow tendinopathy (COS-LET) using best available evidence and an international consensus process

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo develop a core outcome set for lateral elbow tendinopathy (COS-LET) and to provide guidance for outcome evaluation in future studies.MethodsWe implemented a multi-stage mixed-methods design combining two systematic reviews, domain mapping of outcome measurement instruments to the core domains of tendinopathy, psychometric analysis of instruments, two patient focus groups and a Delphi study incorporating two surveys and an international consensus meeting. Following the OMERACT guidelines, we used a 70% threshold for consensus.Results38 clinicians/researchers and 9 patients participated. 60 instruments were assessed for inclusion. The only instrument that was recommended for the COS-LET was Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) for the disability domain. Interim recommendations were made to use: the PRTEE function subscale for the function domain; PRTEE pain subscale items 1, 4 and 5 for the pain over a specified time domain; pain-free grip strength for the physical function capacity domain; a Numerical Rating Scale measuring pain on gripping for the pain on activity/loading domain; and time off work for the participation in life activities domain. No recommendations could be made for the quality-of-life, patient rating of condition and psychological factors domains.ConclusionsThe COS-LET comprises the PRTEE for the disability domain. Interim-use recommendations included PRTEE subscales, time off work, pain-free grip strength and a Numerical Rating Scale measuring pain on gripping. Further work is required to validate these interim measures and develop suitable measures to capture the other domains.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a core outcome set for lateral elbow tendinopathy (COS-LET) using best available evidence and an international consensus process

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We pooled the effect sizes using STATA software (version 16). I 2 (I-squared) value was used to report statistical heterogeneity across RCTs, with 0% to 25% representing low heterogeneity, 26% to 50% representing medium heterogeneity, and above 50% representing high heterogeneity 23. In the case of high heterogeneity, the random-effect model was the preferred method for meta-analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I 2 (I-squared) value was used to report statistical heterogeneity across RCTs, with 0% to 25% representing low heterogeneity, 26% to 50% representing medium heterogeneity, and above 50% representing high heterogeneity. 23 In the case of high heterogeneity, the random-effect model was the preferred method for meta-analysis. We used the Hedge g benchmark to interpret the magnitude of the effect sizes: trivial effect (SMD <0.2), small effect (SMD = 0.2), medium effect (SMD = 0.5), and large effect (SMD > 0.8).…”

Section: Data Synthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Interventions on Pain and Disability for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Shafiee¹,

MacDermid

Packham

et al. 2023

The Clinical Journal of Pain

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To summarize and critically appraise the body of evidence on conservative management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We conducted a literature search from inception to November 2021 in the following databases: Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PEDRO, and Psychinfo. Two independent reviewers conducted risk of bias and quality assessment. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were the methods for summarizing the findings of the RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the overall quality and certainty of the evidence on each treatment outcome. Result: Through a database search, 751 records were found, and 33 RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Studies were published between 1995 and 2021. The overall risk of bias for 2 studies was low, 8 studies were unclear, and 23 studies were high. Low-quality evidence suggests that mirror therapy (as an addition to conventional stroke rehabilitation interventions) and graded motor imagery program (compared with routine rehabilitation interventions) may result in a large improvement in pain and disability up to 6-month follow-up in poststroke CRPS-1 patients. Low-quality evidence suggests that pain exposure therapy and aerobic exercises as an additive treatment to physical therapy interventions may result in a large improvement in pain up to a 6-month follow-up. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of all other targeted interventions over conventional physical therapy or sham treatments on pain and disability. Discussion: There is an ongoing need for high-quality studies to inform conservative management choices in CRPS.

show abstract

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of the Shoulder and Elbow

Vieira de Sousa,

Claro,

Dias

et al. 2024

Orthopaedic Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation of the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE); a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 13 publications

References 38 publications

Development of a core outcome set for lateral elbow tendinopathy (COS-LET) using best available evidence and an international consensus process

Development of a core outcome set for lateral elbow tendinopathy (COS-LET) using best available evidence and an international consensus process

The Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Interventions on Pain and Disability for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of the Shoulder and Elbow

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About