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 (journal)
SN - 0962-9343
VL - 23
SP - 2495
EP - 2504
JO - Quality of Life Research
JF - Quality of Life Research
IS - 9
ER -