Agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Society Standardized Shoulder Assessment score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) in patients presenting with shoulder pathology: A cohort analysis of the Clinical Quality Registry for Outcomes in Shoulder and Elbow Pathology (CROSEP) registry
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2022
Agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Society Standardized Shoulder Assessment score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) in patients presenting with shoulder pathology: A cohort analysis of the Clinical Quality Registry for Outcomes in Shoulder and Elbow Pathology (CROSEP) registry
The choice of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used in shoulder studies varies based on clinician's preference and location. This creates difficulties when attempting to compare studies which have used different PROMs as their outcome measure. This study aims to assess the agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and identify factors associated with agreement.
Methods
Patients with shoulder pathology were identified from a multi-cohort observational practice registry. 1050 paired ASES and OSS pre-treatment scores were prospectively collected. Linear regression was performed to assess the agreement between the PROMs. Mixed-effects analysis of variance was performed to assess the influence of factors associated with agreement.
Results
Regression for mean total and mean function ASES and OSS demonstrated good fit (adjusted R2 57.7%, P < 0.001; and 63.9%, P < 0.001). Mean pain subscore demonstrated a poorer fit (adjusted R2 39.4%, P < 0.001). Crosswalks to convert between mean scores were produced with reasonable precision. Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey score, age and diagnosis cohort influenced agreement.
Conclusion
Mean total and mean function ASES and OSS scores agree well with each other. This allows for a more informed comparison of studies using either PROMs as their outcome measure.
VascellariAVenturinDRamponiC, et al.Psychometric properties of three different scales for subjective evaluation of shoulder pain and dysfunction in Italian patients after shoulder surgery for anterior instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27: 1497–1504.
2.
BeastallJEFieldingSChristieE, et al.Shoulder outcome measures: is there a right answer?Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg2012; 38: 659–664.
AhmedSBerzonRARevickiDA, et al.The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med Care2012; 50: 1060–1070.
5.
AndrawisJPChenokKEBozicKJ. Health policy implications of outcomes measurement in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 3475–3481.
6.
AngstFSchwyzerHKAeschlimannA, et al.Measures of adult shoulder function: disabilities of the Arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), shoulder pain and disability Index (SPADI), American shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) society standardized shoulder assessment form, constant (murley) score (CS), simple shoulder test (SST), Oxford shoulder score (OSS), shoulder disability questionnaire (SDQ), and western ontario shoulder instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res2011; 63: S174–S188.
7.
BookerSAlfahadNScottM, et al.Use of scoring systems for assessing and reporting the outcome results from shoulder surgery and arthroplasty. World J Orthop2015; 6: 244–251.
8.
VargheseMLambJRambaniR, et al.The use of shoulder scoring systems and outcome measures in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl2014; 96: 590–592.
9.
RasmussenJVOlsenBSFevangBT, et al.A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2012; 21: 1328–1335.
10.
FuMCChangBWongAC, et al.PROMIS Physical function underperforms psychometrically relative to American shoulder and elbow surgeons score in patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28: 1809–1815.
11.
PorterSR. Raising response rates: what works?New Dir Institutional Res2004; 2004: 5–21.
12.
SendersAHanesDBourdetteD, et al.Reducing survey burden: feasibility and validity of PROMIS measures in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2014; 20: 1102–1111.
13.
ShawBESyrjalaKLOnstadLE, et al.PROMIS Measures can be used to assess symptoms and function in long-term hematopoietic cell transplantation survivors. Cancer2018; 124: 841–849.
14.
DiehrPChenLPatrickD, et al.Reliability, effect size, and responsiveness of health status measures in the design of randomized and cluster-randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials2005; 26: 45–58.
15.
SnyderCFWatsonMEJacksonJD, et al.Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy. Value Health2007; 10: S76–S85.
16.
HapuarachchiKSPoonPC. A correlation study of the American shoulder and elbow society score and the Oxford shoulder score with the use of regression analysis to predict one score from the other in patients undergoing reverse shoulder joint arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy. Shoulder Elbow2014; 6: 81–89.
17.
WijeratnaMTaylorDMLeeS, et al.Clinical and radiographic results of an All-polyethylene pegged bone-ingrowth glenoid component. J Bone Joint Surg Am2016; 98: 1090–1096.
18.
BenchimolEISmeethLGuttmannA, et al. The REporting of studies conducted using observational routinely-collected health data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med2015; 12: e1001885. 2015/10/07.
19.
RichardsRRAnKNBiglianiLU, et al.A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg1994; 3: 347–352.
20.
TashjianRZDeloachJGreenA, et al.Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am2010; 92: 296–303.
21.
TashjianRZHungMKeenerJD, et al.Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American shoulder and elbow surgeons score, simple shoulder test, and visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2017; 26: 144–148.
22.
DawsonJFitzpatrickRCarrA. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78: 593–600.
HaoQDevjiTZeraatkarD, et al.Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a BMJ rapid recommendation. BMJ Open2019; 9: e028777.
25.
XuSChenJYLieHME, et al.Minimal clinically important difference of Oxford, constant, and UCLA shoulder score for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Orthop2020; 19: 21–27.
26.
SelimAJRogersWFleishmanJA, et al. Updated U.S. Population standard for the veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12). Qual Life Res2009; 18: 43–52. 2008/12/04.
27.
McClurePMichenerL. Measures of adult shoulder function: the American shoulder and elbow surgeons standardized shoulder form patient self-report section (ASES), disabilities of the Arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH), shoulder disability questionnaire, shoulder pain and disability Index (SPADI), and simple shoulder TestArthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2003; 49: S50–S58.
GilbartMKGerberC. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2007; 16: 717–721.
31.
RetzkyJSBakerMHannanCV, et al.Single assessment numeric evaluation scores correlate positively with American shoulder and elbow surgeons scores postoperatively in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: 146–149.
32.
WickmanJRLauBCScribaniMB, et al.Single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) correlates with American shoulder and elbow surgeons score and western ontario rotator cuff index in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: 363–369.
33.
GulottaLVNhoSJDodsonCC, et al.Prospective evaluation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs at 5 years: part II--prognostic factors for clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2011; 20: 941–946.
34.
NhoSJShindleMKAdlerRS, et al.Prospective analysis of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: subgroup analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2009; 18: 697–704.
35.
KeulenMHFTeunisTVagnerGA, et al. The effect of the content of patient-reported outcome measures on patient perceived empathy and satisfaction: a randomized controlled trial. J Hand Surg Am2018; 43: 1141 e1141–1141 e1149. 2018/06/13.
36.
ClaessenFMMellemaJJStoopN, et al. Influence of priming on patient-reported outcome measures: a randomized controlled trial. Psychosomatics2016; 57: 47–56. 2015/12/20.
37.
ProvencherMTFrankRMMacianD, et al.An analysis of shoulder outcomes scores in 275 consecutive patients: disease-specific correlation across multiple shoulder conditions. Mil Med2012; 177: 975–982.
38.
AmundsenARasmussenJVOlsenBS, et al.Low revision rate despite poor functional outcome after stemmed hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures: 2,750 cases reported to the danish shoulder arthroplasty registry. Acta Orthop2019; 90: 196–201.
39.
AyilaraOFZhangLSajobiTT, et al.Impact of missing data on bias and precision when estimating change in patient-reported outcomes from a clinical registry. Health Qual Life Outcomes2019; 17: 06.
40.
DawsonJRogersKDollH, et al.Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) routinely: an example in the context of elective shoulder surgery. Open Epidemiol J2010; 3: 42–52.
41.
MechlenburgIRasmussenSUnbehaunD, et al.Patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty for failed nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fracture have low implant survival and low patient-reported outcomes: 837 cases from the danish shoulder arthroplasty registry. Acta Orthop2020; 91: 1–7. DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1730660
42.
PageRSPaiVEngK, et al.Cementless versus cemented glenoid components in conventional total shoulder joint arthroplasty: analysis from the Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27: 1859–1865.
43.
RasmussenJVAmundsenASorensenAKB, et al.Increased use of total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and improved patient-reported outcome in Denmark, 2006-2015: a nationwide cohort study from the danish shoulder arthroplasty registry. Acta Orthop2019; 90: 489–494.
44.
RolfsonOBohmEFranklinP, et al.Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries report of the patient-reported outcome measures working group of the international society of arthroplasty registries part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop2016; 87: 9–23.
45.
RowlandCWalshLHarropR, et al.What Do UK orthopedic surgery patients think about PROMs? Evaluating the evaluation and explaining missing data. Qual Health Res2019; 29: 2057–2069.
46.
TariqMBVegaJFWestermannR, et al.Arthroplasty studies with greater than 1000 participants: analysis of follow-up methods. Arthroplast Today2019; 5: 243–250.
47.
WilsonIBohmELubbekeA, et al.Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev2019; 4: 357–367.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
