The Responsiveness and Interpretability of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index

Graaf, Marloes Thoomes-de; Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolyne G M; Duijn, Edwin; Karel, Yasmaine; Vet, Henrica C.W. de; Koes, Bart W.; Verhagen, Arianne P.

doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7079

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with previous literature on MIC estimation, the MICs varied according to the baseline scores [19,24,64,65]. Our results showed that higher baseline scores resulted in higher MIC values.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Responsiveness and minimal important change of the QuickDASH and PSFS when used among patients with shoulder pain

Rysstad

Grotle

Klokk

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) are commonly used outcome instruments for measuring self-reported disability in patients with shoulder pain. To date, few studies have evaluated the responsiveness and estimated their minimal important change (MIC). Further assessment will expand the current knowledge and improve the interpretability of these instruments in clinical and research practice. The purpose of this prospective cohort study with 3 months follow-up was to evaluate the responsiveness of the QuickDASH and PSFS in patients with shoulder pain, and to estimate their MICs by using two different anchor-based methods. Methods: Patients with shoulder pain recruited at a multidisciplinary hospital outpatient clinic completed the QuickDASH and PSFS at baseline and at 3 months follow-up. The responsiveness was evaluated by using a criterion approach with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and a construct approach by testing 9 a-priori hypotheses. The MIC was assessed using two anchor-based MIC methods. Results: 134 patients participated at baseline and 117 (87.3%) at 3 months follow-up. The AUC was acceptable for both QuickDASH (0.75) and PSFS (0.75). QuickDASH met 7 (77.8%) and PSFS 8 (88.9%) of the hypotheses. None of the instruments showed signs of floor and ceiling effects. The MIC estimates ranged from 10.8 to 13.6 for QuickDASH and from 1.9 to 2.0 for PSFS, depending on the method used. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that both the QuickDASH and PSFS are responsive measures of disability in patients with shoulder pain. The estimated MIC values were presented.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Responsiveness and minimal important change of the QuickDASH and PSFS when used among patients with shoulder pain

Rysstad

Grotle

Klokk

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seven hypotheses were formulated per subscale (Table ). These hypotheses were based on previous studies assessing responsiveness and methodology guidelines by COSMIN …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsiveness of quality‐of‐life measures in patients with peripheral vascular malformations: the OVAMA project

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background The OVAMA (Outcome Measures for Vascular Malformations) project determined quality of life (QoL) as a core outcome domain for patients with vascular malformations. In order to measure how current therapeutic strategies alter QoL in these patients, a patient‐reported outcome measurement (PROM) responsive to changes in QoL is required. Objectives To assess the responsiveness of two widely used generic QoL PROMs, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF‐36) and Skindex‐29, in adult patients with vascular malformations. Methods In an international multicentre prospective study, treated and untreated patients completed the SF‐36 and Skindex‐29 at baseline and after a follow‐up period of 6–8 weeks. Global rating of change (GRC) scales assessing various QoL‐related outcome domains were additionally completed. Per subscale, responsiveness was assessed using two methods: by testing hypotheses on expected correlation strength between change scores of the questionnaires and the GRC scales, and by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The questionnaires were considered responsive if ≥ 75% of the hypotheses were confirmed or if the AUC was ≥ 0·7. Results Eighty‐nine participants were recruited in three centres in the Netherlands and the U.S.A., of whom 67 completed all baseline and follow‐up questionnaires. For all subscales of the SF‐36 and Skindex‐29, < 75% of the hypotheses were confirmed and the AUC was < 0·7. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the SF‐36 and Skindex‐29 seemed unresponsive to change in QoL. This suggests that alternative PROMs are needed to measure – and ultimately improve – QoL in patients with vascular malformations. What's already known about this topic? Quality of life is often impaired in patients with vascular malformations. Quality of life is considered a core outcome domain for evaluating treatment of vascular malformations. To measure the effect of treatment on quality of life, a patient‐reported outcome measure is required that is responsive to changes in quality of life. What does this study add? This is the first study assessing the responsiveness of quality‐of‐life measures in patients with vascular malformations. The results seem to indicate that the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF‐36) and Skindex‐29 are not responsive to changes in quality of life in patients with vascular malformations. What are the clinical implications of this work? Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF‐36) and Skindex‐29 are not ideal to assess the effect on quality of life over time, of treatment strategies for peripheral vascular malformations.

show abstract

“…The total score varies between 0 and 100, a higher score indicates a higher level of pain-related disability [ 18 ]. The Dutch SPADI (SPADI-D) has shown to be valid (hypothesis testing, factor structure), reliable (internal consistency and test–retest), interpretable (measurement error, floor, and ceiling effects) and responsive, in patients with shoulder pain in primary care [ 20 , 21 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

One question might be capable of replacing the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) when measuring disability: a prospective cohort study

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

QuestionsIs it possible to replace the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) with a single substitute question for people with shoulder pain, when measuring disability and how well does this substitute question perform as a predictor for recovery.DesignA prospective cohort study.ParticipantsA total of 356 patients with shoulder pain in primary care.AnalysesConvergent, divergent, and “known” groups validity were assessed by using hypotheses testing. Responsiveness was assessed using the Receiver Operating Curve and hypothesis testing. In addition, we performed multivariate regression to assess if the substitute question showed similar properties as the SPADI and if it affected the model itself, using recovery as an outcome.ResultsThe Spearman correlation coefficient between the total SPADI score and the substitute question was high, and moderate with the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire. The correlation between the substitute question and the EQ-5D-3L was low and the responsiveness was acceptable. The substitute question did not significantly contribute to both prognostic prediction models as opposed to the SPADI. Regardless all models showed poor to fair discrimination.ConclusionThe single question is a reasonable substitute for the SPADI and can be used as a screening instrument for shoulder disability in primary clinical practice. It has slightly poorer predictive power and should therefore not be used for prognosis.

show abstract

The Responsiveness and Interpretability of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index

Cited by 28 publications

References 49 publications

Responsiveness and minimal important change of the QuickDASH and PSFS when used among patients with shoulder pain

Responsiveness and minimal important change of the QuickDASH and PSFS when used among patients with shoulder pain

Responsiveness of quality‐of‐life measures in patients with peripheral vascular malformations: the OVAMA project

One question might be capable of replacing the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) when measuring disability: a prospective cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About