Exploring the outcomes in studies of primary frozen shoulder: is there a need for a core outcome set?

Sara Rodgers, Stephen Brealey, Laura Jefferson, Catriona McDaid, Emma Maund, Nigel Hanchard, Lorna Goodchild, Sally Spencer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose In our study we explored the need to define a core outcome set for primary frozen shoulder. Methods We investigated the outcomes used by studies included in a systematic review of the management of primary frozen shoulder; surveyed which primary outcome measures health care professionals considered important; and re-examined papers previously obtained for a systematic review of patients’ views of interventions for frozen shoulder to investigate their views on outcomes. Results Thirty-one studies investigated the outcomes range of movement (28 studies), pain (22), function and disability (22), adverse events (13), quality of life (7) and other outcomes (5). Many different types of pain and ranges of movement were measured. Function and disability was measured using fifteen instruments, the content of which varied considerably. Function and disability, pain and range of movement (132, 108 and 104 respondents, respectively) were most often cited by health care professionals as the primary outcome measure that should be used. Searches identified one paper that included patients’ views. Outcomes of importance to patients were pain at night, general pain, reduced mobility (resulting in modification of activities) and the emotional impact of frozen shoulder. Conclusions We identified a diverse range of outcomes that have been used or are considered to be important. The development of a core outcome set would improve the design and reporting of studies and availability of data for evidence synthesis. Methods used to develop a core outcome set should be robust, transparent and reflect the views of all stakeholders.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2495-2504
Number of pages10
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume23
Issue number9
Early online date11 May 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Oct 2014

Fingerprint

Bursitis
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Pain
Primary Health Care
Quality of Life
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Core outcome set
  • Frozen shoulder
  • Systematic review
  • Survey

Cite this

Rodgers, Sara ; Brealey, Stephen ; Jefferson, Laura ; McDaid, Catriona ; Maund, Emma ; Hanchard, Nigel ; Goodchild, Lorna ; Spencer, Sally. / Exploring the outcomes in studies of primary frozen shoulder: is there a need for a core outcome set?. In: Quality of Life Research. 2014 ; Vol. 23, No. 9. pp. 2495-2504.
@article{cae06dbb03254337a386f189f44878fa,
title = "Exploring the outcomes in studies of primary frozen shoulder: is there a need for a core outcome set?",
abstract = "Purpose In our study we explored the need to define a core outcome set for primary frozen shoulder. Methods We investigated the outcomes used by studies included in a systematic review of the management of primary frozen shoulder; surveyed which primary outcome measures health care professionals considered important; and re-examined papers previously obtained for a systematic review of patients’ views of interventions for frozen shoulder to investigate their views on outcomes. Results Thirty-one studies investigated the outcomes range of movement (28 studies), pain (22), function and disability (22), adverse events (13), quality of life (7) and other outcomes (5). Many different types of pain and ranges of movement were measured. Function and disability was measured using fifteen instruments, the content of which varied considerably. Function and disability, pain and range of movement (132, 108 and 104 respondents, respectively) were most often cited by health care professionals as the primary outcome measure that should be used. Searches identified one paper that included patients’ views. Outcomes of importance to patients were pain at night, general pain, reduced mobility (resulting in modification of activities) and the emotional impact of frozen shoulder. Conclusions We identified a diverse range of outcomes that have been used or are considered to be important. The development of a core outcome set would improve the design and reporting of studies and availability of data for evidence synthesis. Methods used to develop a core outcome set should be robust, transparent and reflect the views of all stakeholders.",
keywords = "Core outcome set, Frozen shoulder, Systematic review, Survey",
author = "Sara Rodgers and Stephen Brealey and Laura Jefferson and Catriona McDaid and Emma Maund and Nigel Hanchard and Lorna Goodchild and Sally Spencer",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-014-0708-6",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "2495--2504",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Kluwer",
number = "9",

}

Rodgers, S, Brealey, S, Jefferson, L, McDaid, C, Maund, E, Hanchard, N, Goodchild, L & Spencer, S 2014, 'Exploring the outcomes in studies of primary frozen shoulder: is there a need for a core outcome set?', Quality of Life Research, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 2495-2504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0708-6

Exploring the outcomes in studies of primary frozen shoulder: is there a need for a core outcome set? / Rodgers, Sara; Brealey, Stephen; Jefferson, Laura; McDaid, Catriona; Maund, Emma; Hanchard, Nigel; Goodchild, Lorna; Spencer, Sally.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 23, No. 9, 07.10.2014, p. 2495-2504.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring the outcomes in studies of primary frozen shoulder: is there a need for a core outcome set?

AU - Rodgers, Sara

AU - Brealey, Stephen

AU - Jefferson, Laura

AU - McDaid, Catriona

AU - Maund, Emma

AU - Hanchard, Nigel

AU - Goodchild, Lorna

AU - Spencer, Sally

PY - 2014/10/7

Y1 - 2014/10/7

N2 - Purpose In our study we explored the need to define a core outcome set for primary frozen shoulder. Methods We investigated the outcomes used by studies included in a systematic review of the management of primary frozen shoulder; surveyed which primary outcome measures health care professionals considered important; and re-examined papers previously obtained for a systematic review of patients’ views of interventions for frozen shoulder to investigate their views on outcomes. Results Thirty-one studies investigated the outcomes range of movement (28 studies), pain (22), function and disability (22), adverse events (13), quality of life (7) and other outcomes (5). Many different types of pain and ranges of movement were measured. Function and disability was measured using fifteen instruments, the content of which varied considerably. Function and disability, pain and range of movement (132, 108 and 104 respondents, respectively) were most often cited by health care professionals as the primary outcome measure that should be used. Searches identified one paper that included patients’ views. Outcomes of importance to patients were pain at night, general pain, reduced mobility (resulting in modification of activities) and the emotional impact of frozen shoulder. Conclusions We identified a diverse range of outcomes that have been used or are considered to be important. The development of a core outcome set would improve the design and reporting of studies and availability of data for evidence synthesis. Methods used to develop a core outcome set should be robust, transparent and reflect the views of all stakeholders.

AB - Purpose In our study we explored the need to define a core outcome set for primary frozen shoulder. Methods We investigated the outcomes used by studies included in a systematic review of the management of primary frozen shoulder; surveyed which primary outcome measures health care professionals considered important; and re-examined papers previously obtained for a systematic review of patients’ views of interventions for frozen shoulder to investigate their views on outcomes. Results Thirty-one studies investigated the outcomes range of movement (28 studies), pain (22), function and disability (22), adverse events (13), quality of life (7) and other outcomes (5). Many different types of pain and ranges of movement were measured. Function and disability was measured using fifteen instruments, the content of which varied considerably. Function and disability, pain and range of movement (132, 108 and 104 respondents, respectively) were most often cited by health care professionals as the primary outcome measure that should be used. Searches identified one paper that included patients’ views. Outcomes of importance to patients were pain at night, general pain, reduced mobility (resulting in modification of activities) and the emotional impact of frozen shoulder. Conclusions We identified a diverse range of outcomes that have been used or are considered to be important. The development of a core outcome set would improve the design and reporting of studies and availability of data for evidence synthesis. Methods used to develop a core outcome set should be robust, transparent and reflect the views of all stakeholders.

KW - Core outcome set

KW - Frozen shoulder

KW - Systematic review

KW - Survey

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/exploring-outcomes-studies-primary-frozen-shoulder-need-core-outcome-set

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-014-0708-6

DO - 10.1007/s11136-014-0708-6

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 2495

EP - 2504

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 9

ER -