Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2020; 158(01): 90-103
DOI: 10.1055/a-0837-1085
Review/Übersicht
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Scores zur Nachuntersuchung von Behandlungsergebnissen: Welche sind valide?

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Ali Darwich
Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery Center, University Medicine Mannheim; Medical Faculty Mannheim of the University of Heidelberg, Mannheim
,
Viola Schüttler
Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery Center, University Medicine Mannheim; Medical Faculty Mannheim of the University of Heidelberg, Mannheim
,
Udo Obertacke
Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery Center, University Medicine Mannheim; Medical Faculty Mannheim of the University of Heidelberg, Mannheim
,
Ahmed Jawhar
Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery Center, University Medicine Mannheim; Medical Faculty Mannheim of the University of Heidelberg, Mannheim
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 June 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Im Fachbereich Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie finden zahlreiche Scores Anwendung. Ziel der Studie ist die Erstellung einer Übersichtsarbeit zur Prüfung des Ausmaßes der Validität von häufig eingesetzten klinischen Scores in der Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie.

Methoden Die Auswahl fiel basierend auf der Häufigkeit ihres Einsatzes auf 19 bzw. 22 der am meisten genutzten Scores für die obere bzw. untere Extremität. Für die jeweiligen Scores wurden in den Datenbanken Medline, PubMed und Google Scholar Validierungsstudien identifiziert. Zur Beurteilung der methodologischen Qualität der Validierungsstudien wurde die sog. COSMIN-Checkliste (COSMIN: Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) von Mokkink et al. genutzt.

Ergebnis Die gemeinsame Betrachtung von Validität, Objektivität und Reliabilität scheint kein Standardvorgehen von Validierungsstudien zu sein. Die in der COSMIN-Checkliste aufgeführten Kriterien der Validität wurden von den meisten Validierungsstudien der Scores nicht vollständig erfüllt. Sechs Scores der oberen Extremität und 4 Scores der unteren Extremität sind nach der COSMIN-Checkliste nicht ausreichend validiert. Die Scores mit der umfangreichsten Validität sind für die obere Extremität der Oxford Shoulder Score und für die untere Extremität der Hip Disabilities and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) sowie der Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Score (WOMAC).

Schlussfolgerung Es gibt keinen Goldstandard für den Inhaltsumfang von Validierungsstudien. Die COSMIN-Checkliste gibt eine zuverlässige Übersicht über den Umfang der Validität. Je mehr Kriterien der COSMIN-Checkliste in Validierungsstudien getestet werden, desto umsichtiger sind die Überlegungen des validierenden Studienleiters. In klinischen Studien finden ebenso nicht validierte Scores, z. B. der Score nach Neer und Castaing, regelmäßig ihre Anwendung. Die vorliegende Übersichtsarbeit gibt einen Überblick über den Validitätsumfang der häufig genutzten Scores in der Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie.

Schlüsselwörter

Score - Validität - Reliabilität - Objektivität - COSMIN-Checkliste
 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Westphal T. [Reliability and responsiveness of the German version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH)]. Unfallchirurg 2007; 110: 548-552 doi:10.1007/s00113-007-1235-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 King GJ, Richards RR, Zuckerman JD. et al. A standardized method for assessment of elbow function. Research Committee, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999; 8: 351-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Atroshi I, Johnsson R, Sprinchorn A. Self-administered outcome instrument in carpal tunnel syndrome. Reliability, validity and responsiveness evaluated in 102 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1998; 69: 82-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hawkins RJ, Thigpen CA. Selection, implementation, and interpretation of patient-centered shoulder and elbow outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: 357-362 doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Naal FD, Sieverding M, Impellizzeri FM. et al. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted German Oxford hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 952-957 doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0457-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Swiontkowski MF, Buckwalter JA, Keller RB. et al. The outcomes movement in orthopaedic surgery: where we are and where we should go. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81: 732-740
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wright RW, Baumgarten KM. Shoulder outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010; 18: 436-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Doering N, Bortz J. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2016: 1063
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Holle R. Methoden zur Konstruktion und Evaluierung klinischer Scores [Habilitationsschrift]. Heidelberg: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität; 1995: 115
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Wright RW. Knee injury outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2009; 17: 31-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wikipedia. Validität. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Im Internet: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validität Stand: 27.08.2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL. et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539-549 doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E. et al. Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 82 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL. et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 737-745 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tingart M, Bäthis H, Lefering R. et al. Constant-Score und Neer-Score. Ein Vergleich von Scoreergebnis und subjektiver Patientenzufriedenheit. Unfallchirurg 2001; 104: 1048-1054 doi:10.1007/s001130170019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Othman A, Taylor G. Is the constant score reliable in assessing patients with frozen shoulder? 60 shoulders scored 3 years after manipulation under anaesthesia. Acta Orthop Scand 2004; 75: 114-116 doi:10.1080/00016470410001708230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Skutek M, Fremerey RW, Zeichen J. et al. Outcome analysis following open rotator cuff repair. Early effectiveness validated using four different shoulder assessment scales. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2000; 120: 432-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Angst F, Pap G, Mannion AF. et al. Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total shoulder arthroplasty: usefulness and validity of subjective outcome measures. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51: 819-828 doi:10.1002/art.20688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Romeo AA, Mazzocca A, Hang DW. et al. Shoulder scoring scales for the evaluation of rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (427) 107-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Boehm D, Wollmerstedt N, Doesch M. et al. [Development of a questionnaire based on the Constant-Murley-Score for self-evaluation of shoulder function by patients]. Unfallchirurg 2004; 107: 397-402 doi:10.1007/s00113-004-0757-3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Böhm TD, Kirschner S, Köhler M. et al. The German Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire: reliability, validity, responsiveness, and comparison with the Short Form 36 and Constant score–a prospective evaluation of patients undergoing repair for rotator cuff tear. Rheumatol Int 2005; 25: 86-93 doi:10.1007/s00296-003-0423-z
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Coster M, Karlsson MK, Nilsson JA. et al. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). Acta Orthop 2012; 83: 197-203 doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.657579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 239-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Stratton SJ. Questioning the validity of science. Prehosp Disaster Med 2014; 29: 1 doi:10.1017/S1049023X14000053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nebengütekriterien in der Forschung. Wirtschaftspsychologische Gesellschaft (WPGS). Im Internet: https://wpgs.de/fachtexte/ergebnisinterpretation/nebenguetekriterien-in-der-forschung/ Stand: 03.09.2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Schou L, Hostrup H, Lyngso EE. et al. Validation of a new assessment tool for qualitative research articles. J Adv Nurs 2012; 68: 2086-2094 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05898.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; (214) 160-164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602-608 doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003; 4: 11 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-4-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Navsarikar A, Gladman DD, Husted JA. et al. Validity assessment of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH) for patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 2191-2194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E. et al. Italian version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Hand Surg Br 2003; 28: 179-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Veenhof C, Bijlsma JW, van den Ende CH. et al. Psychometric evaluation of osteoarthritis questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 55: 480-492 doi:10.1002/art.22001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Getahun TY, MacDermid JC, Patterson SD. Concurrent validity of patient rating scales in assessment of outcome after rotator cuff repair. J Musculoskelet Res 2000; 4: 119-127 doi:10.1142/S021895770000015X
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lee EW, Lau JS, Chung MM. et al. Evaluation of the Chinese version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH-HKPWH): cross-cultural adaptation process, internal consistency and reliability study. J Hand Ther 2004; 17: 417-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Offenbächer M, Ewert T, Sangha O. et al. Validation of a German version of the ‘Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand’ questionnaire (DASH-G). Z Rheumatol 2003; 62: 168-177 doi:10.1007/s00393-003-0461-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Neer CS2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. II. Treatment of three-part and four-part displacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970; 52: 1090-1103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T. et al. The Neer classification system for proximal humeral fractures. An assessment of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75: 1745-1750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kristiansen B, Andersen UL, Olsen CA. et al. The Neer classification of fractures of the proximal humerus. An assessment of interobserver variation. Skeletal Radiol 1988; 17: 420-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 593-600
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Dawson J, Hill G, Fitzpatrick R. et al. The benefits of using patient-based methods of assessment. Medium-term results of an observational study of shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83: 877-882
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Cloke DJ, Lynn SE, Watson H. et al. A comparison of functional, patient-based scores in subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: 380-384 doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.08.008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Huber W, Hofstaetter JG, Hanslik-Schnabel B. et al. The German version of the Oxford Shoulder Score–cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004; 124: 531-536 doi:10.1007/s00402-004-0716-z
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN. et al. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 1038-1046 doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02060
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006; 7: 44 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Imaeda T, Toh S, Wada T. et al. Validation of the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand Version of the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH-JSSH) questionnaire. J Orthop Sci 2006; 11: 248-253 doi:10.1007/s00776-006-1013-1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Stover B, Silverstein B, Wickizer T. et al. Accuracy of a disability instrument to identify workers likely to develop upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil 2007; 17: 227-245 doi:10.1007/s10926-007-9083-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Mintken PE, Glynn P, Cleland JA. Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18: 920-926 doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.015
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Rowe CR, Zarins B. Chronic unreduced dislocations of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982; 64: 494-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA. et al. Comparison of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27: 214-221 doi:10.1177/03635465990270021701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Romeo AA, Bach jr. BR, OʼHalloran KL. Scoring systems for shoulder conditions. Am J Sports Med 1996; 24: 472-476 doi:10.1177/036354659602400411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Kupsch A, Kessler MA, Weis M. et al. [Development of a questionnaire for patient self-assessment of shoulder function based on the Rowe score]. Unfallchirurg 2007; 110: 111-115 doi:10.1007/s00113-006-1198-y
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Kirkley A, Griffin S, McLintock H. et al. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Am J Sports Med 1998; 26: 764-772 doi:10.1177/03635465980260060501
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Gaudelli C, Balg F, Godbout V. et al. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the French language translation of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014; 100: 99-103 doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.09.007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Hatta T, Shinozaki N, Omi R. et al. Reliability and validity of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) in the Japanese population. J Orthop Sci 2011; 16: 732-736 doi:10.1007/s00776-011-0141-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Salomonsson B, Ahlström S, Dalén N. et al. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI): validity, reliability, and responsiveness retested with a Swedish translation. Acta Orthop 2009; 80: 233-238 doi:10.3109/17453670902930057
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Hofstaetter JG, Hanslik-Schnabel B, Hofstaetter SG. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the German version of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130: 787-796 doi:10.1007/s00402-009-1033-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 MacDermid JC. Outcome evaluation in patients with elbow pathology: issues in instrument development and evaluation. J Hand Ther 2001; 14: 105-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Turchin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptors of elbow pain, function, and disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80: 154-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Angst F, John M, Pap G. et al. Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total elbow arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 53: 73-82 doi:10.1002/art.20911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 John M, Angst F, Awiszus F. et al. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Elbow Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation into German and evaluation of its psychometric properties. J Hand Ther 2010; 23: 301-313 doi:10.1016/j.jht.2010.03.001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Broberg MA, Morrey BF. Results of delayed excision of the radial head after fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986; 68: 669-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Inglis AE, Pellicci PM. Total elbow replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980; 62: 1252-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 de Boer YA, van den Ende CH, Eygendaal D. et al. Clinical reliability and validity of elbow functional assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 1909-1917
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Sathyamoorthy P, Kemp GJ, Rawal A. et al. Development and validation of an elbow score. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004; 43: 1434-1440 doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Vishwanathan K, Alizadehkhaiyat O, Kemp GJ. et al. Responsiveness of the Liverpool Elbow Score in elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: 312-317 doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.09.003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Morrey BF, Adams RA. Semiconstrained arthroplasty for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74: 479-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 de Boer YA, Hazes JM, Winia PC. et al. Comparative responsiveness of four elbow scoring instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 2616-2623
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ. et al. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75: 1585-1592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Sezgin M, Incel NA, Serhan S. et al. Assessment of symptom severity and functional status in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: reliability and functionality of the Turkish version of the Boston Questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28: 1281-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Imaeda T, Uchiyama S, Toh S. et al. Validation of the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Hand version of the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Instrument. J Orthop Sci 2007; 12: 14-21 doi:10.1007/s00776-006-1087-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Lue YJ, Wu YY, Liu YF. et al. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. J Occup Rehabil 2015; 25: 717-724 doi:10.1007/s10926-015-9579-0
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Keilani MY, Pernicka E, Paternostro-Sluga T. et al. Übersetzung und Validierung des „Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire“ zum Einsatz bei deutschsprachigen Patienten. Phys Med Rehab Kuror 2008; 18: 136-144 doi:10.1055/s-2007-1004550
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Castaing J. [Recent fractures of the lower extremity of the radius in adults]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1964; 50: 581-696
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Gartland jr. JJ, Werley CW. Evaluation of healed Collesʼ fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1951; 33-A: 895-907
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Stewart HD, Innes AR, Burke FD. Functional cast-bracing for Collesʼ fractures. A comparison between cast-bracing and conventional plaster casts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984; 66: 749-753
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB. et al. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1969; 50: 311-319
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Mak MK, Lau ET, Tam VW. et al. Use of Jebsen Taylor Hand Function Test in evaluating the hand dexterity in people with Parkinsonʼs disease. J Hand Ther 2015; 28: 389-394 doi:10.1016/j.jht.2015.05.002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Culicchia G, Nobilia M, Asturi M. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Jebsen-Taylor hand function test in an Italian population. Rehabil Res Pract 2016; 2016: 8970917 doi:10.1155/2016/8970917
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Sears ED, Chung KC. Validity and responsiveness of the Jebsen-Taylor hand function test. J Hand Surg Am 2010; 35: 30-37 doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.09.008
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR. et al. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 1998; 23: 575-587 doi:10.1016/S0363-5023(98)80042-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Massy-Westropp N, Krishnan J, Ahern M. Comparing the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, and Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004; 31: 1996-2001
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Marks M, Audige L, Herren DB. et al. Measurement properties of the German Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in patients with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014; 66: 245-252 doi:10.1002/acr.22124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Knobloch K, Kuehn M, Papst S. et al. German standardized translation of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire for patient-related outcome measurement in Dupuytren disease. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128: 39e-40e doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318218fd70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 MacDermid JC, Turgeon T, Richards RS. et al. Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: a reliable and valid measurement tool. J Orthop Trauma 1998; 12: 577-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Wah JW, Wang MK, Ping CL. Construct validity of the Chinese version of the Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation Questionnaire (PRWE-Hong Kong Version). J Hand Ther 2006; 19: 18-26 doi:10.1197/j.jht.2005.10.003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 MacDermid JC, Wessel J, Humphrey R. et al. Validity of self-report measures of pain and disability for persons who have undergone arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the carpometacarpal joint of the hand. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15: 524-530 doi:10.1016/j.joca.2006.10.018
    Google Scholar
  • 88 Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51: 737-755
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Söderman P, Malchau H. Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (384) 189-197
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Garellick G, Malchau H, Herberts P. Specific or general health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip replacement. A comparison between the Harris hip score and the Nottingham Health Profile. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 600-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Unver B, Karatosun V, Gunal I. Assessing the results of thrust plate prosthesis: a comparison of four different rating systems. Clin Rehabil 2005; 19: 654-658 doi:10.1191/0269215505cr868oa
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Øvre S, Sandvik L, Madsen JE. et al. Comparison of distribution, agreement and correlation between the original and modified Merle dʼAubigné-Postel Score and the Harris Hip Score after acetabular fracture treatment: moderate agreement, high ceiling effect and excellent correlation in 450 patients. Acta Orthop 2005; 76: 796-802 doi:10.1080/17453670510045390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Mahomed NN, Arndt DC, McGrory BJ. et al. The Harris hip score: comparison of patient self-report with surgeon assessment. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16: 575-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Nilsdotter A, Bremander A. Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63 (Suppl. 11) S200-S207 doi:10.1002/acr.20549
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klassbo M. et al. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)–validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003; 4: 10 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-4-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 de Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB. et al. Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15: 104-109 doi:10.1016/j.joca.2006.06.014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Ornetti P, Parratte S, Gossec L. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) in hip osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18: 522-529 doi:10.1016/j.joca.2009.12.007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Blasimann A, Dauphinee SW, Staal JB. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric properties of the German version of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014; 44: 989-997 doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Klassbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol 2003; 32: 46-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 185-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Frost S. et al. Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83: 1125-1129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Fitzpatrick R, Morris R, Hajat S. et al. The value of short and simple measures to assess outcomes for patients of total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care 2000; 9: 146-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Lequesne MG, Mery C, Samson M. et al. Indexes of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Validation–value in comparison with other assessment tests. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 1987; 65: 85-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Dawson J, Linsell L, Doll H. et al. Assessment of the Lequesne index of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip in an elderly population. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005; 13: 854-860 doi:10.1016/j.joca.2005.05.006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Stucki G, Sangha O, Stucki S. et al. Comparison of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index and a self-report format of the self-administered Lequesne-Algofunctional index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1998; 6: 79-86 doi:10.1053/joca.1997.0097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Ludwig FJ, Melzer C, Grimmig H. et al. [Cross cultural adaptation of the Lequesne algofunctional indices for German speaking patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and the knee]. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2002; 41: 249-257 doi:10.1055/s-2002-33273
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Johanson NA, Liang MH, Daltroy L. et al. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A: 902-909
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Saltzman CL, Mueller C, Zwior-Maron K. et al. A primer on lower extremity outcome measurement instruments. Iowa Orthop J 1998; 18: 101-111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH. et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 1833-1840
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Bruce B, Fries J. Longitudinal comparison of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51: 730-737 doi:10.1002/art.20695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S. et al. [Evaluation of a German version of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Arthrosis Index]. Z Rheumatol 1996; 55: 40-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 DʼAubigne RM, Postel M. Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1954; 36-A: 451-475
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Arafiles RP, Gustilo RB. Joint replacement in non-ambulatory patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979; 61: 892-897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Kettelkamp DB, Thompson C. Development of a knee scoring scale. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975; (107) 93-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Müller W, Biedert R, Hefti F. et al. OAK knee evaluation. A new way to assess knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (232) 37-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS. et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28: 88-96 doi:10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C. et al. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1998; 8: 439-448
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 118 Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 17 doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 119 Xie F, Li SC, Roos EM. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore English and Chinese versions of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Asians with knee osteoarthritis in Singapore. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006; 14: 1098-1103 doi:10.1016/j.joca.2006.05.005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 120 Kick SM. Testtheoretische Überprüfung einer deutschen Version des Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) bei Patienten mit fortgeschrittener Gonarthrose [Dissertation]. Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Ulm; 2005
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 121 Kessler S, Lang S, Puhl W. et al. [The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–a multifunctional questionnaire to measure outcome in knee arthroplasty]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2003; 141: 277-282 doi:10.1055/s-2003-40083
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 122 Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; (198) 43-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 123 Paxton EW, Fithian DC, Stone ML. et al. The reliability and validity of knee-specific and general health instruments in assessing acute patellar dislocation outcomes. Am J Sports Med 2003; 31: 487-492 doi:10.1177/03635465030310040201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 124 Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y. et al. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37: 890-897 doi:10.1177/0363546508330143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 125 Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M. Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 958-965 doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0358-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 126 Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 1982; 10: 150-154 doi:10.1177/036354658201000306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 127 Sgaglione NA, Del Pizzo W, Fox JM. et al. Critical analysis of knee ligament rating systems. Am J Sports Med 1995; 23: 660-667 doi:10.1177/036354659502300604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 128 Marx RG, Jones EC, Allen AA. et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A: 1459-1469
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 129 Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK. et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee scale for various chondral disorders of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A: 1139-1145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 130 Wirth B, Liffert F, de Bruin ED. [Development and evaluation of a German version of the Lysholm score for measuring outcome after anterior cruciate ligament injuries]. Sportverletz Sportschaden 2011; 25: 37-43 doi:10.1055/s-0029-1245825
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 131 Nilsson-Helander K, Thomee R, Silbernagel KG. et al. The Achilles Tendon total Rupture Score (ATRS): development and validation. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35: 421-426 doi:10.1177/0363546506294856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 132 SooHoo NF, Shuler M, Fleming LL. et al. Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int 2003; 24: 50-55 doi:10.1177/107110070302400108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 133 Kearney RS, Achten J, Lamb SE. et al. The Achilles tendon total rupture score: a study of responsiveness, internal consistency and convergent validity on patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012; 10: 24 doi:10.1186/1477-7525-10-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 134 Halasi T, Kynsburg A, Tallay A. et al. Development of a new activity score for the evaluation of ankle instability. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32: 899-908 doi:10.1177/0363546503262181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 135 Nauck T, Lohrer H. Translation, cross-cultural adaption and validation of the German version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure for patients with chronic ankle instability. Br J Sports Med 2011; 45: 785-790 doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.067637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 136 Hale SA, Hertel J. Reliability and sensitivity of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train 2005; 40: 35-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 137 Pugia ML, Middel CJ, Seward SW. et al. Comparison of acute swelling and function in subjects with lateral ankle injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2001; 31: 384-388 doi:10.2519/jospt.2001.31.7.384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 138 Robinson JM, Cook JL, Purdam C. et al. The VISA-A questionnaire: a valid and reliable index of the clinical severity of Achilles tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med 2001; 35: 335-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 139 Silbernagel KG, Thomee R, Karlsson J. Cross-cultural adaptation of the VISA-A questionnaire, an index of clinical severity for patients with Achilles tendinopathy, with reliability, validity and structure evaluations. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2005; 6: 12 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-6-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 140 Lohrer H, Nauck T. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the VISA-A questionnaire for German-speaking Achilles tendinopathy patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009; 10: 134 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-10-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 141 Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS. et al. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 1994; 15: 349-353 doi:10.1177/107110079401500701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 142 Ibrahim T, Beiri A, Azzabi M. et al. Reliability and validity of the subjective component of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society clinical rating scales. J Foot Ankle Surg 2007; 46: 65-74 doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2006.12.002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 143 Malviya A, Makwana N, Laing P. Correlation of the AOFAS scores with a generic health QUALY score in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 2007; 28: 494-498 doi:10.3113/FAI.2007.0494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 144 Kostuj T, Stief F, Hartmann KA. Using the Oxford Foot Model to determine the association between objective measures of foot function and results of the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale and the Foot Function Index: a prospective gait analysis study in Germany. BMJ 2018; DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019872.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 145 Madeley NJ, Wing KJ, Topliss C. et al. Responsiveness and validity of the SF-36, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in end stage ankle arthritis. Foot Ankle Int 2012; 33: 57-63 doi:10.3113/FAI.2012.0057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 146 Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 2001; 22: 788-794 doi:10.1177/107110070102201004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 147 van Bergen CJ, Sierevelt IN, Hoogervorst P. et al. Translation and validation of the German version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134: 897-901 doi:10.1007/s00402-014-1994-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 148 Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Wearing S. et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1998; 88: 419-428 doi:10.7547/87507315-88-9-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 149 Landorf KB, Keenan AM. An evaluation of two foot-specific, health-related quality-of-life measuring instruments. Foot Ankle Int 2002; 23: 538-546 doi:10.1177/107110070202300611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 150 Hildebrand KA, Buckley RE, Mohtadi NG. et al. Functional outcome measures after displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 119-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar