Elsevier

Injury

Volume 36, Issue 4, April 2005, Pages 468-476
Injury

REVIEW
Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremity following trauma: a review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2004.06.014Get rights and content

Summary

Orthopaedic injuries are common among trauma patients and can result in long-term problems. Considerable data are available regarding functional outcomes following lower extremity trauma. There is, however, a paucity of data available for upper extremity trauma patients. Whilst currently available instruments appear to assess outcomes of relevance in trauma populations, the reliability, validity and responsiveness of these instruments have not been evaluated in the upper extremity trauma population.

This paper reviews instruments designed for patient self-evaluation of musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity, and instruments used in an orthopaedic trauma population to assess functional recovery following injury.

The Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (MFA), Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Scale (ASES-s), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Elbow Scale (ASES-e), Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE), and the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) were reviewed.

Until research is published outlining the evaluation of assessment instruments in upper extremity orthopaedic populations, authors will need to conduct their own validation studies before investigating outcomes in specific trauma populations.

Introduction

Orthopaedic injuries to the extremities are common in trauma patients1 and can result in long-term problems, such as functional deficits, disability and high pain levels.37 Whilst much has been published detailing the outcomes following lower extremity orthopaedic trauma,9, 30, 31, 34, 36, 41 very little information is available regarding patient outcomes following upper extremity orthopaedic trauma. This is in spite of the importance of the upper extremity in performing activities of daily living (ADL).11

A previous study of patients, 5 years after severe injury (ISS > 15), found that upper extremity fractures resulted in chronic pain, disability, and functional problems.40 However, only the presence, or absence, of pain, functional problems and disability were reported. Information was not collected regarding the degree of difficulty experienced and the types of activities affected. Overall, there is a dearth of detailed outcome data relating to upper extremity trauma, so necessary for monitoring long term outcomes, evaluating treatment options, and informing resource allocation (e.g., outpatient treatment, support services, etc.) for these patients.

A full understanding of functional outcomes following upper extremity trauma could be hindered by the fact that upper extremity outcome assessment instruments have not been designed specifically for use in trauma populations, limiting the development of a standardised approach. This review provides an overview of outcome assessment instruments for use in upper extremity and orthopaedic trauma populations, with a particular focus on their reliability, validity and ease of use.

Section snippets

Assessing the suitability of an instrument

The design and validation of outcome assessment instruments has been driven by psychometric theory, which deals with the design, administration, and interpretation of quantitative tests.55 The evaluation of outcome measures has previously been described in detail.4, 14, 18, 21, 38 In summary, the key properties of outcome measures are reliability, validity and responsiveness.

Reliability refers to the ability of an instrument to yield consistent and reproducible results. Test–retest analyses

Search strategy and selection criteria for reviewed outcome measures

A search of the Medline database (from January 1966 to February 2004) was performed. The keywords used to identify potential measures of interest (either in isolation, or in combination) were: orthopaedic*; outcome measure*; trauma; upper extremity; upper limb; arm injury*; instrument; assessment; function. Only articles published in English were included. A hand search was conducted of six medical journals from 1998 to 2003 that regularly published papers using outcome measures in orthopaedic

Features of the outcome assessment instruments for evaluation of the upper extremity

The instruments reviewed could be specific to a joint, or to a disease, be applicable to the whole upper extremity, or to both the upper and lower extremities. Kinesiological theory suggests that the upper extremity operates as a single functional unit.11, 25 Therefore, whole instruments and individual items designed to be specific to a joint of the upper extremity may still be able to detect disability in another area of the upper extremity. The difficulty in designing items specific for a

Conclusions

Upper extremity orthopaedic trauma outcomes research lacks an instrument specifically designed for use in these populations. While instruments designed for use in non-trauma populations may exhibit content validity for use in trauma, no quantitative evaluation has been conducted. Additionally, because the upper extremity is considered to operate as a single functional unit,11 many of the instruments that are designed for use in patients with specific upper limb joint injuries may detect

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this article forms part of a larger project, the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry, funded by the Victorian Trauma Foundation. Dr. Gabbe was supported by a Public Health Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

References (56)

  • N.C. Mkandawire et al.

    Musculoskeletal recovery 5 years after severe injury: long term problems are common

    Injury

    (2002)
  • R. Padua et al.

    Italian version of the disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation

    J Hand Surg B

    (2003)
  • R.R. Richards et al.

    A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function

    J Shoulder Elbow Surg

    (1994)
  • N.F. SooHoo et al.

    Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36

    J Hand Surg A

    (2002)
  • L. Aharonson-Daniel et al.

    A new approach to the analysis of multiple injuries using data from a national trauma registry

    Injury Prevent.

    (2003)
  • J.O. Anglen et al.

    The "Gull Sign": a harbinger of failure for internal fixation of geriatric acetabular fractures

    J Orthop Trauma

    (2003)
  • I. Atroshi et al.

    The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire. Reliability and validity of the Swedish version evaluated in 176 patients

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (2000)
  • D.E. Beaton et al.

    Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity

    J Hand Ther

    (2001)
  • D.E. Beaton et al.

    A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires

    J Bone Joint Surg A

    (1996)
  • D.E. Beaton et al.

    Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function

    Clin Orthop

    (2003)
  • O.L. Brown et al.

    Incidence of hardware-related pain and its effect on functional outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures

    J Orthop Trauma

    (2001)
  • J.L. Butcher et al.

    Long-term outcomes after lower extremity trauma

    J Trauma

    (1996)
  • J. Cohen

    Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (1977)
  • K.A. Egol et al.

    The floating shoulder: clinical and functional results

    J Bone Joint Surg A

    (2001)
  • R. Engelberg et al.

    Musculoskeletal function assessment instrument: criterion and construct validity

    J Orthop Res

    (1996)
  • R. Fitzpatrick et al.

    Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials

    Health Technol Assess

    (1998)
  • J.L. Fleiss

    Statistical methods for rates and proportions

    (1981)
  • G. Guyatt et al.

    Measuring health-related quality of life

    Ann Intern Med

    (1993)
  • Cited by (112)

    • Measuring Outcomes Over Time in Distal Radius Fractures: A Comparison of Generic, Upper Extremity-Specific and Wrist-Specific Outcome Measures

      2020, Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online
      Citation Excerpt :

      No inversion of scores is required because a greater score corresponds to less disability. This score was originally designed to assess outcomes specifically in distal radius fractures.8,17 All patients who completed questionnaires at 3 time points were included in the responsiveness analysis.

    • Assessment of Functional Outcomes

      2020, Cooper's Fundamentals of Hand Therapy: Clinical Reasoning and Treatment Guidelines for Common Diagnoses of the Upper Extremity
    • Functional Assessment and Evaluation of Outcome After Endovascular Therapy With Coverage of the Left Subclavian Artery in Case of Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury

      2017, Annals of Vascular Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      This questionnaire captures the upper left extremity as a single functional unit and was sent out to all patients in 2014. Furthermore, the given answers were evaluated and ranged to a score between 0 and 100, whereby 100 means severe dysfunction.14,15 The results can be compared with the DASH norms, which has been evaluated by Hunsaker et al. for a nonharmed group of patients.13

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text