Establishing User Error on the Patient-Reported Component of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score.

BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire developed to facilitate communication among international investigators and to allow comparison of outcomes for patients with shoulder disabilities. Although this PRO measure has been deemed easy to read and understand, patients may make mistakes when completing the questionnaire. PURPOSE: To evaluate the frequency of potential mistakes made by patients completing the ASES score. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was performed for 600 ASES questionnaires completed by patients upon their first visit to 1 of 2 clinic locations (Australian vs Canadian site). Two categories of potential errors were predefined, and then differences in error rates were compared based on demographics (age, sex, and location). To determine whether these methods were reliable, an independent, third reviewer evaluated a subset of questionnaires separately. The interrater reliability was evaluated through use of the Cohen kappa. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 49.9 years, and 63% of patients were male. The Cohen kappa was high for both evaluation methods used, at 0.831 and 0.918. On average, 17.9% of patients made at least 1 potential mistake, while an additional 10.4% of patients corrected their own mistakes. No differences in total error rate were found based on baseline demographics. Canadians and Australians had similar rates of error. CONCLUSION: To ensure the accuracy of the ASES score, this questionnaire should be double checked, as potential mistakes are too frequently made. This attentiveness will ensure that the ASES score remains a valid, reliable, and responsive tool to be used for further shoulder research.

Patients Undergoing Shoulder Stabilization Procedures Do Not Accurately Recall Their Preoperative Symptoms at Short- to Midterm Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: A patient's ability to recall symptoms is poor in some elderly populations, but we considered that the recall of younger patients may be more accurate. The accuracy of recall in younger patients after surgery has not been reported to date. PURPOSE: To assess younger patients' abilities to recall their preoperative symptoms after having undergone shoulder stabilization surgery. We used 2 disease-specific, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)-the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and the Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score (MISS)-at a period of up to 2 years postoperatively. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Participants (N = 119) were stratified into 2 groups: early recall (at 6-8 months postoperatively; n = 58) and late recall (at 9-24 months postoperatively; n = 61). All patients completed the PROMs with instructions to recall preoperative function. The mean and absolute differences between the preoperative scores and recalled scores for each PROM were compared using paired t tests. Correlations between the actual and recalled scores of the subsections for each PROM were calculated using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The number of individuals who recalled within the minimal detectable change (MDC) of each PROM was calculated. RESULTS: Comparison between the means of the actual and recalled preoperative scores for both groups did not demonstrate significant differences (early recall differences, MISS 1.05 and WOSI -38.64; late recall differences, MISS -0.25 and WOSI -24.02). Evaluation of the absolute difference, however, revealed a significant difference between actual and recalled scores for both the late and early groups (early recall absolute differences, MISS 12.26 and WOSI 216.71; late recall absolute differences, MISS 12.84 and WOSI 290.08). Average absolute differences were above the MDC scores of both PROMs at both time points. Subsections of each PROM demonstrated weak to moderate correlations between actual and recalled scores (ICC range, 0.17-0.61). Total scores for the PROMs reached moderate agreement between actual and recalled scores. CONCLUSION: Individual recall after shoulder instability surgery was not accurate. However, the mean recalled PROM scores of each group were not significantly different from the actual scores collected preoperatively, and recall did not deteriorate significantly over 2 years. This suggests that recall of the individual, even in this younger group, cannot be considered accurate for research purposes.

The Specific AC Score (SACS): a new and validated method of assessment of isolated acromioclavicular joint pathology.

BACKGROUND: Acromioclavicular (AC) joint (ACJ) pathology is a common cause of shoulder dysfunction, and treatment recommendations vary. When the efficacy of treatment is evaluated, the ability to measure outcomes specific to the population is essential. The aim of the current research was to develop and validate a specific ACJ questionnaire. METHODS: Items for the "Specific AC Score" (SACS) were generated through the use of an expert panel, existing questionnaires, and patient feedback. Preliminary data analysis identified redundancy of items resulting in the questionnaire being refined. The final SACS was evaluated in 125 patients requiring surgical intervention of the ACJ. Internal consistency (the Cronbach α and corrected item-total correlation), content validity, criterion validity, responsiveness, and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) were examined and compared with the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Oxford Shoulder Score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form. The minimum detectable change score was calculated. RESULTS: The Cronbach α for the total scale preoperatively and postoperatively was high (preoperatively = 0.91, postoperatively = 0.93). All 3 domains (Pain, Function, Quality of Life) demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α > 0.70), and the correlation between items in each domain was satisfactory. The responsiveness was excellent (effect size, -2.32; standard response mean, -1.85) and was higher than the other general shoulder questionnaires. There were no relevant floor or ceiling effects. Reliability was high (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.89) and the minimum detectable change was 6.5 points. DISCUSSION: This new ACJ-specific questionnaire has been robustly developed, has good measurement properties, and has excellent responsiveness. The SACS is recommended for measuring outcomes in ACJ patients.