Objective: To determine the responsiveness to change of isokinetic dynamometry of the shoulder and to compare this responsiveness with outcome measures of pain and activity level.
Design: Responsiveness was evaluated as the change in outcome after intra articular steroid injection in patients with capsulitis of the shoulder. Effect sizes of all outcome measures, quantified as standardized response means, were compared. Relationships between change scores of shoulder function and activities were assessed.
Subjects: Ten patients with unilateral capsulitis of the shoulder.
Main outcome measures: Muscle strength and active range of motion were measured by isokinetic dynamometry. We then calculated involved/uninvolved ratios of the maximal peak torques of abduction, adduction, external and internal rotation, active range of motion of abduction and external rotation. In addition, pain was scored using the numeric rating scale (NRS-101) and activity level was scored using the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire.
Results: The standardized response mean of all outcome parameters was equal to or greater than 0.8, except for active range of motion of abduction. No significant differences between the standardized response means were found. There is a significant correlation between the change scores of NRS-101 and Shoulder Disability Questionnaire. No significant correlations were found between the change scores of NRS-101 and Shoulder Disability Questionnaire on the one hand, and involved/uninvolved ratios of peak torques and active range of motion on the other.
Conclusions: Responsiveness of all outcome measures is good. Parameters of isokinetic dynamometry may provide additional information as compared with the usual outcome measures of pain and functional level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Hoving JL, Buchbinder R, Green S et al.How reliably do rheumatologists measure shoulder movement. Ann Rheum Dis2002; 61: 612-616.
3 Jamison RJ, Sbrocco T, Parris WCV. The influence of physical and psychosocial factors on accuracy of memory for pain in chronic patients. Pain1989; 37: 289-294.
4.
4 Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain1996; 27: 117-126.
5.
5 Chapman CR, Casey KL, Dubner R, Foley KM, Gracely RH, Reading AE. Pain measurement: an overview. Pain1985; 22: 1-31.
6.
6 Lundeberg T, Lund I, Dahlin L et al. Reliability and responsiveness of three different pain assessments. J Rehabil Med2001; 33: 279-283.
7.
7 van Meeteren J, Roebroeck ME, Stam HJ. Test-retest reliability in isokinetic muscle strength measurements of the shoulder. J Rehabil Med2002; 34: 91-95.
8.
8 Dvir Z. Reproducibility, validity and related topics. In Isokinetics: muscle testing, interpretation and clinical applications. Churchill Livingstone, 1995: 41-62.
9.
9 Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol2000; 53: 459-468.
10.
10 van der Windt DAWM, Koes BW, de Jong BA, Bouter LM. Shoulder disorders in general practice: incidence, patient characteristics, and management. Ann Rheum Dis1995; 54: 959-964.
11.
11 de Jong BA, Dahmen R, Hogeweg JA. Intraarticular triamcinolone acetonide injection in patients with capsulitis of the shoulder: a comparative study of two dose regimens. Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 211-215.
12.
12 Cyriax J. Textbook of orthopaedic medicine, eighth edition. Bailliere Tindall, 1982.
13.
13 van der Heijden GJ, van der Windt DA, Kleijnen J, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Steroid injections for shoulder disorders: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Br J Gen Pract1996; 46: 309-316.
14.
14 Green S, Buchbinder R, Glazier R, Forbes A. Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of interventions for painful shoulder: selection criteria, outcome assessment, and efficacy. BMJ1998; 316: 354-360.
15.
15 van der Windt DAWM, Koes BW, Devillé W, Boeke AJP, de Jong BA, Bouter LM. Effectiveness of corticosteroid injections versus physiotherapy for treatment of painful stiff shoulder in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ1998; 317: 1292-1296.
16.
16 van der Windt DAWM, van der Heijden GJMG, de Winter AF, Koes BW, Devillé W, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire. Ann Rheum Dis1998; 57:82-87.
17.
17 van Meeteren J, Roebroeck ME, Selles RW, Stijnen T, Stam HJ. Concentric isokinetic dynamometry of the shoulder: which parameters discriminate between healthy subjects and patients with shoulder disorders?Isokinet Exerc Sci2004; 4: 239-246.
18.
18 Mens JMA, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ, Ronchetti I, Ginai AZ, Stam HJ. Responsiveness of outcome measurements in rehabilitation of patients with posterior pelvic pain since pregnancy. Spine2002; 27: 1110-1115.
20 Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull1992; 112: 155-159.
21.
21 Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care1990; 28: 632-642.
22.
22 Stam HJ, Binkhorst RA. Muscle strength impairment and disability in Guillain-Barre patients: a pilot study. J Rehabil Sci1989; 2: 108-110.
23.
23 Lankhorst GJ, van de Stadt RJ, Korts JK. The relationships of functional capacity, pain, and isometric and isokinetic torque in osteoarthrosis of the knee. Scand J Rehabil Med1985; 17: 167-172.
24.
24 Harlaar J, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ. Computer-assisted hand-held dynamometer: low-cost instrument for muscle function assessment in rehabilitation medicine. Med Biol Eng Comput1996; 34: 329-335.
