Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To examine the frequency of use and establish routine clinical practice of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), performance-based OMs and clinician-reported OMs in the assessment of a suspected case of lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET).

Methods

Physiotherapists from eight countries completed an anonymous online survey, rating their frequency of use (never, rarely, sometimes, often and always) for unidimensional PROMs, multidimensional PROMs, performance-based OMs and clinician-reported OMs. To establish clinical practices, responses were dichotomised into routine (≥70% often/always) and not-routine (≥70% sometimes/rarely/never); items below both thresholds were classified as neither.

Results

Two hundred ninety-nine respondents completed the survey. No outcome measure met the criteria for routine practice. Eight of 17 multidimensional PROMs, and six of eight clinician-reported OMs met the criteria for not-routine practice. All unidimensional PROMs and performance-based OMs, and a select number of multidimensional PROMs and clinician-reported OMs did not meet the threshold for routine or not-routine practice.

Conclusions

Our results suggest no single outcome measure is routinely used by physiotherapists assessing a suspected case of LET. It is plausible that physiotherapists select OMs based on patient presentation, rather than the clinical diagnosis, or that outcome measures are perhaps seen more as a research tool than common place in clinical practice.

Keywords

tennis elbow outcome measures assessment management

Introduction

Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET), colloquially known as tennis elbow, is a musculoskeletal condition affecting 1–3% of the general population,¹ 12–25% of factory workers,² and up to 40% of tennis players.³ It is characterised by pain provoked by gripping and object manipulation.⁴ Although LET is relatively straightforward to diagnose, its pathophysiology is complex, involving structural⁵ and sensorimotor changes,^6–9 as well as psychosocial impacts such as social withdrawal, anxiety and reduced quality of life.^10,11

Given this complexity, a person-centred care approach is essential, supported by the appropriate use of evidence-based outcome measures (OMs). Over 50 published OMs are available for LET,¹² spanning several domains.^13,14 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often described as being unidimensional or multidimensional and aim to capture pain and functional impairment from the patient's perspective.^15,16 Performance-based OMs, often referred to as physical outcome measures, offer reliable and objective assessments of function.¹⁵ Clinician-reported OMs reflect patient-relevant outcomes via proxy reports or clinical observations^14,17 and can guide complex decisions, such as surgical referral. With a wide range of distinct yet sometimes overlapping tools,^18,19 and barriers to implementation such as increased time requirements and knowledge of which OMs to use,²⁰ physiotherapists must carefully consider when, what and how OMs are used when managing LET.

Recent clinical guidelines recommend using both unidimensional (e.g., numerical pain rating scale) and multidimensional PROMs (e.g., Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH)).^21,22 A comprehensive Delphi study involving clinicians, researchers and patients has also established a core outcome set for LET (COS-LET).¹² While previous research has examined physiotherapists’ use of OMs,^23–25 there has been limited insight into the specific contexts in which these measures are applied (e.g., pain at rest vs. pain during gripping), making comparisons with current guidelines and COS-LET difficult.

To assess physical impairment in LET, performance-based OMs such as pain-free and maximal grip strength are recommended,^21,22 with pain-free grip strength also included as an interim measure in the COS-LET.¹² However, only two studies have investigated performance-based OMs use by physiotherapists, with one published over two decades ago²⁴ and another examining only pain-free grip strength.²³ A broader evaluation of use of performance-based OMs is needed to understand whether clinical practice aligns with guidelines and the COS-LET.

Clinician-reported OMs, such as the Roles and Maudsley score and the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, are mentioned in guidelines but not recommended due to limited validation in LET populations.²¹ Their frequency of use in clinical practice remains unexplored and may offer insights for future training. Given the multidimensional nature of LET, the wide range of available outcome measures, and gaps in the literature, this study aims to examine the frequency and routine clinical use of outcome measures in LET assessment.

Materials and methods

Study design

An online, anonymous cross-sectional survey was completed by registered physiotherapists from Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Countries were selected as members of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapists with English as an official language. The study was approved by the Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval number: 0000022956) and informed consent was obtained at the start of the survey. The survey was reported using the checklist for reporting of survey studies (CROSS).²⁶

Survey development

The survey was developed through Qualtrics Version May 2021 (Qualtrics, Utah, USA), using previous surveys as a framework.^27,28 The 66-item survey was developed as part of a larger project evaluating self-reported physiotherapy practices for the assessment and management of LET. The assessment and diagnosis portion of the survey has been previously published along with a copy of the full survey as supplementary material.²⁹ Respondents answered demographic questions including age, gender, postgraduate qualifications, country, clinical experience, work setting and estimated monthly LET patient numbers. Regarding this study, respondents reported their frequency of use for unidimensional and multidimensional PROMs, performance-based OMs and clinician-reported OMs, when assessing a suspected case of LET (tennis elbow). The three questions included: (1) When assessing a patient with a suspected case of tennis elbow, how often do you use the following Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)? (2) When assessing a patient with a suspected case of LET (tennis elbow), how often do you use the following physical outcome measures for LET (tennis elbow)? and (3) When assessing a patient with a suspected case of tennis elbow, how often do you use the following Clinician Reported Outcome Measures?. Within this manuscript physical outcome measures are referred to as performance-based OMs. A comprehensive list of outcome measures was included in the survey based on previous literature in LET³⁰ and the experiences of the research team. The frequency of use of these outcome measures was scored using a 5-point Likert scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often and always). Respondents were requested to select ‘never’ if they had not previously heard of the outcome measure(s).

Recruitment and data collection

The recruitment and data collection methods have been previously published²⁹ with the survey open from May 2021 to June 2022. In brief, recruitment was undertaken using social media groups (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and with assistance from the New Zealand Physiotherapy Society. Three $100AUD random prizes were used to optimise responses and were drawn from respondents who provided contact details in a separate form at completion of the survey. The method of identifying artificial bot-generated responses and sample size statistics have been previously reported.²⁹

Data analysis

Data analysis was undertaken using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v26 (IBM Corp, IL, USA) and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, CA, USA). Demographic data are presented using descriptive statistics (e.g., mean (SD), median (IQR), and number (%)). Ordinal data from Likert scales are presented in table format. To analyse the frequency of outcome measure use, we applied a previously published method.²⁹ A combined response rate of ≥70% for ‘often’ or ‘always’ was classified as routine practice, while a combined response rate of ≥70% for ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ was classified as not routine practice. If neither threshold was met, the outcome measure was considered neither routine nor not routine.

Results

Survey response

In brief, 596 people clicked the survey link, 144 were excluded using screening questions, 22 failed to consent, 121 dropped out early, and 10 were deemed bot-generated responses, leaving 299 valid and complete responses.²⁹ The median (IQR) time to complete the survey was 21.8 (14.3–37.2) minutes.

Demographic characteristics

Responder demographics have been previously reported²⁹ and are provided in Figure 1. Approximately one third (30%, n = 91) did not have a postgraduate qualification. Of the 208 respondents with a postgraduate qualification, 23% (n = 48) had a postgraduate certificate or diploma, 43% (n = 90) had a Master of Physiotherapy or a Master of Philosophy, 35% (n = 72) had a Clinical Doctorate, 8% (n = 16) had a Doctor of Philosophy, and 22% (n = 46) had non-tertiary IFOMPT training.

Figure 1.

Respondent demographics. Data presented as n (%) of respondents, unless otherwise indicated. LET: lateral elbow tendinopathy.

Use of outcome measures

Table 1 provides the frequency of use of each outcome measure. No outcome measure met the criteria for routine use based on the ≥70% threshold of ‘always and often’ used (Figure 2). Eight of 17 multidimensional PROMs met the criteria for not-routine use based on the ≥70% threshold of ‘sometimes, rarely, and never’ used (Figure 2). These outcomes included the Hand-10 Questionnaire (78%), University of Peloponnese Pain, Functionality, and Quality of Life Questionnaire (75%), Work Limitations Questionnaire (73%), Laitinen Questionnaire (72%), Oxford Elbow Score (72%), Nirschl Score (71%), Liverpool Elbow Score (71%), and American Shoulder and Elbow Score-E (71%). Six of eight clinical-reported OMs met the criteria for not-routine use including the Placzek Score (75%), Andrew and Carson (75%), Hospital for Special Surgery (74%), Roles and Maudsley (74%), Morrey Score (73%), and Verhaar Score (72%).

Figure 2.

Horizontal stacked bar chart showing the reported frequency of use for physiotherapy outcome measures, grouped by conceptual category: unidimensional patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), multidimensional PROM, performance-based outcome measure and clinician-reported outcome measure. Each bar represents the proportion of respondents indicating “Routine” use (Always or Often; blue gradient) versus “Not routine” use (Sometimes, Rarely or Never; orange gradient). Percentages are displayed within each segment. Vertical dashed lines mark the 70% cut-off thresholds for routine (blue – bottom x-axis) and non-routine (red, top x-axis) use. Colour intensity within segments reflects response distribution.

Table 1.

The frequency of use of outcome measures in the assessment of a suspected case of lateral elbow tendinopathy.

Outcome measures	Always	Often	Sometimes	Rarely	Never
Unidimensional PROMs
Pain at rest	59 (20%)	88 (29%)	96 (32%)	41 (14%)	15 (5%)
Pain during maximal grip	45 (15%)	99 (33%)	86 (29%)	44 (15%)	25 (8%)
Worst pain preceding 24 h	46 (15%)	86 (29%)	89 (30%)	54 (18%)	24 (8%)
Worst pain preceding week	46 (15%)	82 (27%)	110 (37%)	40 (13%)	21 (7%)
Multidimensional PROMs
Quick Disability Arm Shoulder and Hand	42 (14%)	74 (25%)	86 (29%)	52 (17%)	45 (15%)
Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation	34 (11%)	76 (25%)	83 (28%)	44 (15%)	62 (21%)
Upper Extremity Functional Scale	25 (8%)	78 (26%)	84 (28%)	47 (16%)	65 (22%)
Disability Arm Shoulder and Hand	34 (11%)	62 (21%)	100 (33%)	67 (22%)	36 (12%)
Global Rate of Change	28 (9%)	67 (22%)	95 (32%)	54 (18%)	55 (18%)
Tennis Elbow Functional Score	32 (11%)	63 (21%)	83 (28%)	41 (14%)	80 (27%)
Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment	21 (7%)	74 (25%)	88 (29%)	34 (11%)	82 (27%)
Musculoskeletal Function Assessment	23 (8%)	72 (24%)	86 (29%)	40 (13%)	78 (26%)
Upper Limb Functional Index	18 (6%)	74 (25%)	85 (28%)	49 (16%0	73 (24%)
American Shoulder and Elbow Score-E	20 (7%)	68 (23%)	84 (28%)	45 (15%)	82 (27%)
Liverpool Elbow Score	25 (8%)	62 (21%)	80 (27%)	46 (15%)	86 (29%)
Nirschl Score	17 (6%)	69 (23%)	74 (25%)	48 (16%)	91 (30%)
Oxford Elbow Score	21 (7%)	62 (21%)	80 (27%)	59 (20%)	77 (26%)
Laitinen Questionnaire	26 (9%)	55 (18%)	78 (26%)	52 (17%)	88 (29%)
Work Limitations Questionnaire	24 (8%)	50 (17%)	88 (29%)	54 (18%)	83 (28%)
UoP - Pain, Functionality, and QoL Questionnaire	11 (4%)	56 (19%)	86 (29%)	51 (17%)	95 (32%)
Hand-10 Questionnaire	13 (4%)	52 (17%)	89 (30%)	51 (17%)	94 (31%)
Performance-Based Outcomes
Wrist extension strength – MMT	64 (21%)	103 (34%)	82 (27%)	43 (14%)	7 (2%)
Pain-free grip strength – dynamometer	62 (21%)	97 (32%)	98 (33%)	33 (12%)	9 (4%)
Maximal grip strength - dynamometer	58 (19%)	96 (32%)	97 (32%)	35 (12%)	13 (4%)
Wrist extension strength – HHD	38 (13%)	91(30%)	90 (30%	44 (15%)	36 (12%)
ORI – Tennis Elbow Testing System	25 (8%)	70 (23%)	90 (30%)	35 (12%)	79 (26%)
Clinician-Reported Outcomes
Total Elbow Scoring System	30 (10%)	74 (25%)	74 (25%)	40 (13%)	81 (27%)
Mayo Elbow Performance Score	29 (10%)	69 (23%)	84 (28%)	35 (12%)	82 (27%)
Verhaar Score	25 (8%)	58 (19%)	80 (27%)	46 (15%)	90 (30%)
Morrey Score	17 (6%)	63 (21%)	84 (28%)	44 (15%)	91 (30%)
Roles and Maudsley Score	15 (5%)	64 (21%)	78 (26%)	59 (20%)	83 (28%)
Hospital for Special Surgery	28 (9%)	51 (17%)	91 (30%)	46 (15%)	83 (28%)
Andrew and Carson	20 (7%)	55 (18%)	80 (27%)	55 (18%)	89 (30%)
Placzek Score	19 (6%)	55 (18%)	98 (33%)	40 (13%)	87 (29%)

Data reported as number (%). PROMs: Patient-reported outcome measure; UoP: University of Peloponnese; QoL: Quality of Life; MMT: manual muscle tests; HHD: hand-held dynamometer; ORI: Orthopaedic Research Institute.

Discussion

Physiotherapists varied in their use of clinical OMs for suspected LET. Using the ≥70% ‘always’ or ‘often’ response rate threshold, no outcome measure met the criteria for routine practice. Although this may imply limited adherence to current clinical guidelines and the COS-LET^12,22,31,32 or misalignment between guidelines and real-world practice, these guidelines were introduced during and after survey data collection, making consistent compliance unlikely. Rather than applying all outcome measures routinely, clinicians may be selecting tools based on evidence, clinical reasoning and/or patient-centred care, considering individual assessment findings and patient goals. Consistent with current clinical guidelines and the COS-LET, nearly half of the multidimensional PROMs (47%) and three-quarters of the clinician-reported OMs (75%) were classified as not routine, indicating infrequent use. These measures may be reserved for follow-up rather than initial assessment. Overall, the findings suggest that unidimensional PROMs and performance-based OMs are used more frequently, alongside a limited number of multidimensional PROMs and clinician-reported OMs, but none are used routinely.

Unidimensional patient-reported outcome measures

No unidimensional PROMs met the threshold for routine or not-routine use, which may reflect the wide range of available measures and the varied clinical contexts in which they are applied. Pain at rest and pain during gripping were the most frequently used unidimensional PROMs yet still fell short of the routine use threshold. Only 5–8% of respondents reported ‘never’ using unidimensional PROMs for suspected LET, indicating pain scores are commonly but not routinely applied and may be contextualised through assessment stage, clinical reasoning, and/or patient-centred care. The use of unidimensional PROMs to some extent by 92–95% of our respondents appear consistent with current clinical guidelines which recommend the use of the numerical pain rating scale at baseline and at least one other timepoint.²¹ Similarly, our findings align with previous surveys reporting that 65–71% of healthcare professionals use the numerical pain rating scale for patients with LET.^23,24,33 However, unlike previous surveys^23,24,33 and current guidelines,²¹ which do not specify the context of use (e.g., pain at rest vs. during gripping), our results indicate that pain scores are applied across several different clinical contexts, including pain at rest and pain during gripping, and pain across a specific timepoint. In contrast, the COS-LET provides interim recommendations for using Items 1, 4 and 5 of the PRTEE to measure pain over a specified time, and pain during gripping rated using the numerical pain rating scale to measure pain on loading/activity.¹² These interim recommendations were provided by the COS-LET due to a lack of clinometric research and validation of these specific outcome measures in the LET population at the time of publication.¹² Recent evidence suggests that while pain on gripping is reliable in LET, it may lack responsiveness, making it unsuitable for tracking change over time.³⁴ In contrast, the PRTEE pain subscale is reliable and responsive to change over time,³⁴ making it a suitable outcome measure in the LET population. Consistent with current evidence, we recommend using the PRTEE pain subscale (Items 1, 4 and 5) to assess pain over time, with pain on gripping used to assess pain on loading until further evidence emerges. These recommendations are in line with our research findings, the COS LET and clinical guidelines, while practically also reducing the burden on patients and clinicians.

Multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures

No multidimensional PROMs met the threshold for routine use, with nearly half (47%, 8 of 17) classified as not-routine, indicating infrequent application in suspected LET cases. The Quick-DASH and PRTEE were used most frequently, despite not reaching the threshold for routine use. Although our survey included more nuanced questions regarding frequency of use, the findings generally align with previous surveys of Greek and Italian physiotherapists, which reported PRTEE and DASH usage rates ranging from 13% to 38% and 7% to 58%, respectively, highlighting their limited uptake in clinical practice.^23,25 This lack of routine use may not be unexpected as evidence shows several barriers to routine PROM usage in clinical practice, such as time limits, limited knowledge and/or confidence of OMs, and lack of organisational support,²⁰ highlighting the importance of training in the appropriate selection and use of evidence-based OMs in LET. Current clinical guidelines suggest the inclusion of the PRTEE^21,22 and the DASH²¹ at baseline and at least one follow-up timepoint. The COS-LET recommends the PRTEE as a core outcome to measure disability, and an interim outcome to measure function.¹² Taken together, these findings suggest a gap between recommended use of multidimensional PROMs, such as the PRTEE and DASH, and their actual application in clinical practice, as reflected in both our survey data and previous international studies, noting guidelines were published after these surveys were closed.

A systematic review by Evans et al.³⁰ rated the quality of the patient-centred outcomes in LET using the standardised Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool, and identified that four multidimensional PROMs met the minimum criteria for recommend use: DASH, Quick-DASH, PRTEE and the Oxford Elbow Score.³⁰ Although the DASH and PRTEE were frequently used by respondents, the Oxford Elbow Score met the threshold for not-routine use. Speculatively, this may be due to the Oxford Elbow Score being originally developed for post-surgical patients,³⁵ a context not captured in our survey and unlikely to reflect routine use in the initial assessment of suspected LET. As the PRTEE is recommended in guidelines,²¹ included in the COS-LET,¹² and shown to be reliable and sensitive to change,³⁴ we advocate its routine use in the LET population to assess pain and function. Alternatively, the DASH (or Quick-DASH) could be used if required; for example, if there is no translated version of the PRTEE in the required language or if funding bodies require a more general assessment of the function of the upper limb.

Performance-based outcome measures

None of our included performance-based OMs met our criteria for routine or not-routine use. However, manual muscle testing of the wrist extensors was the most frequently used, followed closely by pain-free grip strength and maximal grip strength, with only 2–4% of respondents reporting they ‘never’ use these three measures. Our findings are consistent with a previous survey which reported 65% of physiotherapists always or frequently test muscle strength, most commonly wrist extension, and 46% always or frequently use grip strength as an outcome measure for LET.²⁴ Our findings and that of others²⁴ appear not to align with current clinical guidelines which suggest there is little evidence to support the use of wrist extension strength as an outcome in those with LET.²¹ To assess functional capacity in LET, the COS-LET recommends pain-free grip strength over maximal grip strength as an interim performance-based OM,¹² with recent evidence highlighting good clinometric properties of pain-free grip.³⁴ While maximum grip strength may aid diagnosis,³⁶ it often provokes pain, potentially affecting subsequent assessments,⁸ and is not sensitive to change over time.³⁴ In contrast, pain-free grip strength is considered functional and non-provocative,³⁷ reliable,^34,38 sensitive to change over time^34,39; and correlates with the PRTEE³⁴ and self-perceived pain-free function,⁴⁰ making it an important outcome measure in LET management.

Clinician-reported outcome measures

Three quarters of clinician-reported OMs (75%, 6 of 8) met our criteria for not-routine use suggesting they are infrequently used, while no clinician-reported OM met the criteria for routine use. No previous studies of health professionals have reported the use of clinician-reported OMs in the management of LET. While current guidelines for LET mention the Mayo Elbow Performance Index and the Roles and Maudsley Score, these clinician-reported OMs are not recommended due to a lack of validation within the LET population.²¹ One possible reason for the low use of clinician-reported OMs may be that respondents were asked about their use in ‘suspected cases’ of LET. Since clinician-reported OMs are typically used to support complex decision-making, such as surgical suitability or post-operative outcomes, they may not be relevant during initial assessment. While tools like the Roles and Maudsley Score may be useful for tracking change after treatment, their application should be approached with caution due to limited validation in the LET population.

Limitations

There are several limitations associated with survey-based research including, the inability to establish a causal relationship between current practice and practices recommended by clinical guidelines and the inability to confirm that anonymous respondents were registered physiotherapists.²⁹ More specific to this study, there are other limitations that required consideration. First, given that current guidelines and the COS-LET^12,22,31,32 were published during and after data collection of this survey, it would be unreasonable to expect consistent compliance with clinical recommendations, and these results likely provide a strong baseline for future research to examine whether publication of clinical guidelines alters clinical practice. Second, our survey did not include all possible outcome measures relevant to the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction, including measures of quality of life (e.g., EQ5D) or psychological factors (e.g., Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Third, while respondents were from eight different counties, our findings cannot be generalised to international practice due to the high proportion of respondents from the USA. Fourth, the high proportion of respondents with postgraduate qualifications may reflect participation from countries where such qualifications are required to enter the physiotherapy profession. Postgraduate-qualified individuals may be more engaged with current evidence and more likely to respond, potentially introducing bias. Finally, we did not include the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Given the PSFS is recommended by guidelines,²¹ can be tailored to the individuals’ functional limitations,⁴¹ and is valid, reliable, and responsive to change in patients with upper limb musculoskeletal conditions,⁴² it is plausible that the PSFS is routinely used in the management of LET.

Conclusion

This study highlights the variability in the frequency of outcome measure usage among physiotherapists managing suspected cases of LET. Although none of the outcome measures reported in this study met the criteria for routine use, which appears inconsistent with current clinical recommendations, expectation of compliance with guidelines is unlikely given the COS-LET and clinical guidelines were published during and after our survey data collection. These findings may therefore serve as an important baseline for future investigations. The fact that no outcome measure met the criteria for routine use, may suggest that clinicians use specific outcome measures based on patient-centred care, assessment stage, clinical reasoning and/or other practical constraints (e.g., time, availability). Greater alignment between guideline development, clinician education and real-world practice may be needed to support consistent and evidence-informed use of outcome measures in LET assessment.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sel-10.1177_17585732261440542 - Supplemental material for Physiotherapists’ use of outcome measures in the assessment of lateral elbow tendinopathy: An international online survey

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sel-10.1177_17585732261440542 for Physiotherapists’ use of outcome measures in the assessment of lateral elbow tendinopathy: An international online survey by Luke Heales, Leanne Bisset, Bill Vicenzino, Marcus Bateman, Caitlin Hill, Crystal Kean and Steven Obst in Shoulder & Elbow

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of The New Zealand Physiotherapy Society with distribution of the survey.

ORCID iDs

Luke Heales

Leanne Bisset

Marcus Bateman

Caitlin Hill

Crystal Kean

Steven Obst

Ethical approval

Ethical approval to report these findings was obtained from CQUniversity Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Number: 0000022956).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the responder at the beginning of the survey.

Contributorship

All authors contributed to the conception of the study. All authors developed the survey and assisted in the recruitment of responders. LH completed analysis and SO assisted with the development of the figures. LH drafted the manuscript and all authors edited and approved the final submission.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Study registration

The study was prospectively described on Open Science Framework at .

Guarantor

LH is the guarantor of this work.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Shiri

Viikari-Juntura

Varonen

, et al. Prevalence and determinants of lateral and medial epicondylitis: a population study. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 164: 1065–1074.

Kurppa

Viikari-Juntura

Kuosma

, et al. Incidence of tenosynovitis or peritendinitis and epicondylitis in a meat-processing factory. Scand J Work, Environ Health 1991; 17: 32–37.

Gruchow

Pelletier

. An epidemiologic study of tennis elbow. Incidence, recurrence, and effectiveness of prevention strategies. Am J Sports Med 1979; 7: 234–238.

Scott

Squier

Alfredson

, et al. ICON 2019: international scientific tendinopathy symposium consensus: clinical terminology. Brit J Sports Med 2020; 54: 60.

Heales

Broadhurst

Mellor

, et al. Diagnostic ultrasound imaging for lateral epicondylalgia: a case–control study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014; 46: 2070–2076.

Coombes

Bisset

Vicenzino

. A new integrative model of lateral epicondylalgia. Brit J Sports Med 2009; 43: 252–258.

Heales

Lim

Hodges

, et al. Sensory and motor deficits exist on the non-injured side of patients with unilateral tendon pain and disability–implications for central nervous system involvement: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Brit J Sports Med 2014; 48: 1400–1406.

Heales

Bout

Dines

, et al. An investigation of maximal strength of the upper limb bilaterally in individuals with lateral elbow tendinopathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Phys Ther 2021; 101: pzab230.

Heales

Bergin

MJG

Vicenzino

, et al. Forearm muscle activity in lateral epicondylalgia: a systematic review with quantitative analysis. Sports Med 2016; 46: 1833–1845.

10.

Mesiha

Obst

Randall

, et al. Exploring the beliefs, perceptions, and experiences of individuals with tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. Phys Ther 2025; 105: pzaf060.

11.

Bateman

Hill

Cooper

, et al. Lived experience of people with lateral elbow tendinopathy: a qualitative study from the OPTimisE pilot and feasibility trial. BMJ Open 2023; 13: e072070.

12.

Bateman

Evans

Vuvan

, et al. Development of a core outcome set for lateral elbow tendinopathy (COS-LET) using best available evidence and an international consensus process. Brit J Sports Med 2022; 56: 657–666.

13.

Santana

Haverman

Absolom

, et al. Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Qual Life Res 2015; 24: 1707–1718.

14.

Johnston

Patrick

Devji

, et al. Chapter 18: Patient-reported outcomes. In: Higgins

Thomas

Chandler

, et al., (eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 65. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook: Cochrane, 2024.

15.

Bolink

SAAN

Grimm

Heyligers

. Patient-reported outcome measures versus inertial performance-based outcome measures: a prospective study in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2015; 22: 618–623.

16.

Terwee

van der Slikke

RMA

van Lummel

, et al. Self-reported physical functioning was more influenced by pain than performance-based physical functioning in knee-osteoarthritis patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 724–731.

17.

Powers

Patrick

Walton

, et al. Clinician-reported outcome assessments of treatment benefit: report of the ISPOR clinical outcome assessment emerging good practices task force. Value Health 2017; 20: 2–14.

18.

Chourasia

Buhr

Rabago

, et al. Relationships between biomechanics, tendon pathology, and function in individuals with lateral epicondylosis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013; 43: 368–378.

19.

Chourasia

Buhr

Rabago

, et al. Effect of lateral epicondylosis on grip force development. J Hand Ther 2012; 25: 27–37. quiz 37.

20.

Duncan

Murray

. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12: 96.

21.

Lucado

Day

Vincent

, et al. Lateral elbow pain and muscle function impairments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022; 52: CPG1–CPG111.

22.

Singh

Watts

Bateman

, et al. BESS Patient care pathway: tennis elbow. Shoulder Elbow 2023; 15: 348–359.

23.

Samaras

Karanasios

Stasinopoulos

, et al. Greek Physiotherapists’ contemporary knowledge and practice for lateral elbow tendinopathy: an online survey. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2022; 57: 102502.

24.

Greenfield

Webster

. Chronic lateral epicondylitis: survey of current practice in the outpatient departments in Scotland. Physiother 2002; 88: 578–594.

25.

Cioce

Pennella

Brindisino

, et al. Assessment and management of lateral elbow pain in physiotherapy clinical practice—an Italian national survey. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J 2020; 10: 98.

26.

Sharma

Minh Duc

Luu Lam Thang

, et al. A consensus-based checklist for reporting of survey studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36: 3179–3187.

27.

Bateman

Titchener

Clark

, et al. Management of tennis elbow: a survey of UK clinical practice. Shoulder Elbow 2019; 11: 233–238.

28.

French

Woodley

Fearon

, et al. Physiotherapy management of greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS): an international survey of current physiotherapy practice. Physiother 2020; 109: 111–120.

29.

Heales

Vicenzino

Bisset

, et al. Physiotherapy practices in the clinical assessment of lateral elbow tendinopathy: an international survey. Physiother Res Int 2024; 29: e2125.

30.

Evans

Porter

Gangannagaripalli

, et al. Assessing patient-centred outcomes in lateral elbow tendinopathy: a systematic review and standardised comparison of English language clinical rating systems. Sports Med Open 2019; 5: 10.

31.

Lucado

Day

Vincent

, et al. Lateral elbow pain and muscle function impairments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022; 52: CPG1–CPG111.

32.

Amako

Arai

Iba

, et al. Japanese Orthopaedic association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of lateral epicondylitis of the humerus - secondary publication. J Orthop Sci 2022; 27: 514–532.

33.

MacDermid

Wojkowski

Kargus

, et al. Hand therapist management of the lateral epicondylosis: a survey of expert opinion and practice patterns. J Hand Ther 2010; 23: 18–30.

34.

Sveinall

Brox

Engebretsen

, et al. Measurement properties of core outcomes in patients with tennis elbow. Shoulder Elbow 2025: 17585732251344264. (ahead of print) DOI: 10.1177/17585732251344264.

35.

Dawson

Doll

Boller

, et al. The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 466–473.

36.

Dorf

Chhabra

Golish

, et al. Effect of elbow position on grip strength in the evaluation of lateral epicondylitis. J Hand Surg 2007; 32: 882–886.

37.

Lim

. Pain free grip strength test. J Physiother 2013; 59: 59.

38.

Hill

Heales

Stanton

, et al. Pain-free grip strength in individuals with lateral elbow tendinopathy: between- and within-session reliability of one versus three trials. Physiother Theory Pract 2023; 39: 1007–1015.

39.

Stratford

Levy

. Assessing valid change over time in patients with lateral epicondylitis at the elbow. Clin J Sport Med 1994; 4: 88–91.

40.

Stratford

Levy

Gauldie

. Extensor carpi radialis tendonitis : a validation of selected outcome measures. Physiother Can 1987; 39: 250–255.

41.

Stratford

Gill

Westaway

, et al. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can 1995; 47: 258–263.

42.

Hefford

Abbott

Arnold

, et al. The patient-specific functional scale: validity, reliability, and responsiveness in patients with ipper extremity musculoskeletal problems. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012; 42: 56–65.

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB