Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Elbow Self-Assessment Score (ESAS): development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for elbow disorders

  • Elbow
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To develop and validate an elbow self-assessment score considering subjective as well as objective parameters.

Methods

Each scale of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons-Elbow Score, the Broberg and Morrey rating system (BMS), the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) Questionnaire, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Quick-DASH) was analysed, and after matching of the general topics, the dedicated items underwent a fusion to the final ESAS’s item and a score containing 22 items was created. In a prospective clinical study, validity, reliability and responsiveness in physically active patients with traumatic as well as degenerative elbow disorders were evaluated.

Results

Validation study included 103 patients (48 women, 55 men; mean age 43 years). A high test–retest reliability was found with intraclass correlation coefficients of at least 0.71. Construct validity and responsiveness were confirmed by correlation coefficients of −0.80 to −0.84 and 0.72–0.84 (p <0.05). Correlation coefficients of the ESAS and well-established elbow rating systems BMS, PREE, MEPS, OES and Quick-DASH were between 0.70 and 0.90 (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

With this novel Elbow Self-Assessment Score (ESAS), a valid and reliable instrument for a qualitative self-assessment of subjective and objective parameters (e.g. range of motion) of the elbow joint is demonstrated. Quantitative measurement of elbow function may not longer be limited to specific elbow disorders or patient groups. The ESAS seems to allow for a broad application in clinical research studying elbow patients and may facilitate the comparison of treatment results in elbow disorders. The treatment efficacy can be easily evaluated, and treatment concepts could be reviewed and revised.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic study, Level III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Angst F (2011) The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:152 (author reply 152)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashmore AM, Gozzard C, Blewitt N (2007) Use of the Liverpool Elbow Score as a postal questionnaire for the assessment of outcome after total elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16(3 Suppl):S55–S58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, Upper Extremity Collaborative G (2005) Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(5):1038–1046

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Broberg MA, Morrey BF (1986) Results of delayed excision of the radial head after fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68(5):669–674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Broberg MA, Morrey BF (1987) Results of treatment of fracture-dislocations of the elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res 216:109–119

    Google Scholar 

  6. Capuano L, Poulain S, Hardy P, Longo UG, Denaro V, Maffulli N (2011) No correlation between physicians administered elbow rating systems and patient’s satisfaction. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 51(2):255–259

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, Fitzpatrick R, Little C, Rees J, Jenkinson C, Carr AJ (2008) The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(4):466–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dawson J, Lavis G (2012) Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). Acta Orthop 83(6):674 (author reply 674–675)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris KK, Dawson J, Jones LD, Beard DJ, Price AJ (2013) Extending the use of PROMs in the NHS—using the Oxford Knee Score in patients undergoing non-operative management for knee osteoarthritis: a validation study. BMJ Open 3(8):e003365

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. King GJ, Richards RR, Zuckerman JD, Blasier R, Dillman C, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Iannotti JP, Murnahan JP, Mow VC, Woo SL (1999) A standardized method for assessment of elbow function. Research Committee, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8(4):351–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Longo UG, Franceschi F, Loppini M, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2008) Rating systems for evaluation of the elbow. Br Med Bull 87:131–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. MacDermid JC (2001) Outcome evaluation in patients with elbow pathology: issues in instrument development and evaluation. J Hand Ther 14(2):105–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4(4):293–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2006) Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Parker C, Dewey M (2000) Assessing research outcomes by postal questionnaire with telephone follow-up. TOTAL Study Group. Trial of Occupational Therapy and Leisure. Int J Epidemiol 29(6):1065–1069

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pedersen CK, Danneskiold-Samsoe B, Garrow AP, Waehrens EE, Bliddal H, Christensen R, Bartels EM (2013) Development of a danish language version of the manchester foot pain and disability index: reproducibility and construct validity testing. Pain Res Treat 2013:284903

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sathyamoorthy P, Kemp GJ, Rawal A, Rayner V, Frostick SP (2004) Development and validation of an elbow score. Rheumatology (Oxford) 43(11):1434–1440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Siemiatycki J (1979) A comparison of mail, telephone, and home interview strategies for household health surveys. Am J Public Health 69(3):238–245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith TO, Donell ST, Clark A, Chester R, Cross J, Kader DF, Arendt EA (2014) The development, validation and internal consistency of the Norwich Patellar Instability (NPI) score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(2):324–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HC (2010) Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63(5):524–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. The B, Reininga IH, El Moumni M, Eygendaal D (2013) Elbow-specific clinical rating systems: extent of established validity, reliability, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(10):1380–1394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thorborg K, Holmich P, Christensen R, Petersen J, Roos EM (2011) The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br J Sports Med 45(6):478–491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaningerstrasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Marc Beirer, Henrik Friese, Moritz Crönlein, Gunther H. Sandmann, Peter Biberthaler, Chlodwig Kirchhoff & Sebastian Siebenlist

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Andreas Lenich

Authors
  1. Marc Beirer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henrik Friese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Lenich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Moritz Crönlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gunther H. Sandmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter Biberthaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chlodwig Kirchhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sebastian Siebenlist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Beirer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beirer, M., Friese, H., Lenich, A. et al. The Elbow Self-Assessment Score (ESAS): development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for elbow disorders. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25, 2230–2236 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3647-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3647-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation