View Item 

Show simple item record

Evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires used for the assessment of shoulder disability after neck dissection for head and neck cancer

dc.contributor.authorGoldstein, David P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRingash, Jolieen_US
dc.contributor.authorBissada, Ericen_US
dc.contributor.authorJaquet, Yvesen_US
dc.contributor.authorIrish, Jonathanen_US
dc.contributor.authorChepeha, Douglasen_US
dc.contributor.authorDavis, Aileen M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-07T16:09:21Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-10-07T16:09:21Z
dc.date.issued2014-10en_US
dc.identifier.citationGoldstein, David P.; Ringash, Jolie; Bissada, Eric; Jaquet, Yves; Irish, Jonathan; Chepeha, Douglas; Davis, Aileen M. (2014). "Evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires used for the assessment of shoulder disability after neck dissection for head and neck cancer." Head & Neck 36(10): 1453-1458.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1043-3074en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0347en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/108616
dc.description.abstractBackground Several questionnaires have been used to evaluate shoulder disability after neck dissection. The purpose of this study was to review these measures and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. Methods A literature review was performed to identify measures of shoulder disability after head and neck cancer surgery. These measures were evaluated in terms of their methods of development and assessment of their psychometric properties. Results Seven questionnaires were identified. Several of the other questionnaires have been well developed but have not had their psychometric properties assessed in the head and neck cancer population. Each questionnaire has its strengths and weaknesses. Conclusion The strengths and weaknesses of the shoulder disability questionnaires should be considered when deciding which questionnaire to use. Efforts should be focused on using well‐designed questionnaires that have been assessed in this patient population rather than developing or using other questionnaires. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck , 36: 1453–1458, 2014en_US
dc.publisherPrentice Hall Healthen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherShoulder Impairmentsen_US
dc.subject.otherShoulder Disabilityen_US
dc.subject.otherShoulder Scalesen_US
dc.subject.otherDisabilities of the Armen_US
dc.subject.otherShoulderen_US
dc.subject.otherAnd Hand Questionnaire (DASH)en_US
dc.subject.otherNeck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII)en_US
dc.subject.otherShoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI)en_US
dc.subject.otherAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES)en_US
dc.titleEvaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires used for the assessment of shoulder disability after neck dissection for head and neck canceren_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOtolaryngologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108616/1/hed23490.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hed.23490en_US
dc.identifier.sourceHead & Necken_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChepeha DB, Taylor RJ, Chepeha JC, et al. Functional assessment using Constant's Shoulder Scale after modified radical and selective neck dissection. Head Neck 2002; 24: 432 – 436.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61: 623 – 632.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 2003; 19: 1109 – 1120.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcClure P, Michener LA. Measures of adult shoulder function. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49: S50 – S58.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBreckenridge JD, McAuley JH. Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). J Physiother 2011; 57: 197.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 2003; 19: 1109 – 1120.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBeaton DE, Richards RR. Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross‐sectional comparison of five questionnaires. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 882 – 890.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMichener LA, Leggin BG. A review of self‐report scales for the assessment of functional limitation and disability of the shoulder. J Hand Ther 2001; 14: 68 – 76.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarchese C, Cristalli G, Pichi B, et al. Italian cross‐cultural adaptation and validation of three different scales for the evaluation of shoulder pain and dysfunction after neck dissection: University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder Scale, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2012; 32: 12 – 17.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, de Vet HC. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 335 – 341.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDesai AS, Dramis A, Hearnden AJ. Critical appraisal of subjective outcome measures used in the assessment of shoulder disability. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010; 92: 9 – 13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAngst F, Goldhahn J, Pap G, et al. Cross‐cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the German Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007; 46: 87 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJamnik H, Spevak MK. Shoulder Pain and Disability Index: validation of Slovene version. Int J Rehabil Res 2008; 31: 337 – 341.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAngst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63 Suppl 11: S174 – S188.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan der Heijden GJ, Leffers P, Bouter LM. Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 29 – 38.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Winter AF, van der Heijden GJ, Scholten RJ, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM. The Shoulder Disability Questionnaire differentiated well between high and low disability levels in patients in primary care, in a cross‐sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 1156 – 1163.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceConboy VB, Morris RW, Kiss J, Carr AJ. An evaluation of the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 229 – 232.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKirkley A, Alvarez C, Griffin S. The development and evaluation of a disease‐specific quality‐of‐life questionnaire for disorders of the rotator cuff: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Clin J Sport Med 2003; 13: 84 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceConstant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 214: 160 – 164.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994; 3: 347 – 352.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKocher MS, Horan MP, Briggs KK, Richardson TR, O'Holleran J, Hawkins RJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 2006 – 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMichener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self‐report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002; 11: 587 – 594.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAngst F, Goldhahn J, Drerup S, Aeschlimann A, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. Responsiveness of six outcome assessment instruments in total shoulder arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59: 391 – 398.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohn M, Angst F, Awiszus F, King GJ, MacDermid JC, Simmen BR. 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; quiz 314.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePadua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E, Bondi R, Alviti F, Castagna A. Italian version of ASES questionnaire for shoulder assessment: cross‐cultural adaptation and validation. Musculoskelet Surg 2010; 94 Suppl 1: S85 – S90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHudak 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSolway S, Beaton DE, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH outcome measure user's manual ( 2nd edition ). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Institute for Work and Health; 2002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBeaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther 2001; 14: 128 – 146.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGetahun 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBushnell BD, McWilliams AD, Whitener GB, Messer TM. Early clinical experience with collagen nerve tubes in digital nerve repair. J Hand Surg Am 2008; 33: 1081 – 1087.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNovak CB, Anastakis DJ, Beaton DE, Katz J. Patient‐reported outcome after peripheral nerve injury. J Hand Surg Am 2009; 34: 281 – 287.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldstein DP, Ringash J, Bissada E, et al. Scoping review of the literature on shoulder impairments and disability after neck dissection. Head Neck 2013 [Epub ahead of print].en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGliklich RE, Goldsmith TA, Funk GF. Are head and neck specific quality of life measures necessary? Head Neck 1997; 19: 474 – 480.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMokkink 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaylor RJ, Chepeha JC, Teknos TN, et al. Development and validation of the neck dissection impairment index: a quality of life measure. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 128: 44 – 49.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePortney LG, Watkins MP, editors. Statistical measures of reliability. Foundations of Clinical Research, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Health; 2000. pp 557 – 586.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoach KE, Budiman–Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y. Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res 1991; 4: 143 – 149.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
hed23490.pdf
Size:
99.89KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.