View Item 

Show simple item record

Patient reported outcomes in orthopaedics
dc.contributor.authorGagnier, Joel J.
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-23T17:32:09Z
dc.date.available2018-12-03T15:34:05Zen
dc.date.issued2017-10
dc.identifier.citationGagnier, Joel J. (2017). "Patient reported outcomes in orthopaedics." Journal of Orthopaedic Research 35(10): 2098-2108.
dc.identifier.issn0736-0266
dc.identifier.issn1554-527X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/138935
dc.description.abstractPatient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are key tools when performing clinical research and PROM data are increasingly used to inform clinical decision‐making, patient‐centered care, health policy and more recently, reimbursement decisions. PROMs must possess particular properties before they are used. Thus purpose of this paper is to give an overview of PROMs, their definition, how their evidence can be assessed, how they should be reported in clinical research, how to choose PROMs, the types of PROMs available in orthopaedics, where these measures can be found, PROMs in orthopaedic clinical practice and what are some key next steps in this field. If PROMs are used in accordance with the guidance in this article, I believe we will gain considerable insight into PROMs in orthopaedics and will advance this field in a way that can contribute to science, improve patient care and save considerable resources. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:2098–2108, 2017.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherUniversity printing House
dc.subject.othertrauma
dc.subject.othermethodologies
dc.subject.otherepidemiology
dc.subject.otherclinical outcome
dc.subject.otherclinical
dc.subject.otheroutcomes research
dc.subject.otherhip and knee arthroplasty
dc.titlePatient reported outcomes in orthopaedics
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138935/1/jor23604_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138935/2/jor23604.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jor.23604
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Orthopaedic Research
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, et al. 2012. Measurement properties of disease‐specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 21: 659.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarcia‐Duran Huet M, Ferrer M, Herdman M, et al. 2010. BiblioPRO: online library of PRO instruments in Spanish. Qual Life Res 19: 62 – 63.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNahm ML, Pieper CF, Cunningham MM. 2008. Quantifying data quality for clinical trials using electronic data capture. PLoS ONE 3: e3049.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePorter I, Goncalves‐Bradley D, Ricci‐Cabello I, et al. 2016. Framework and guidance for implementing patient‐reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities. J Comp Effp Res 5: 507 – 519.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlack N, Burke L, Forrest CB, et al. 2016. Patient‐reported outcomes: pathways to better health, better services and better societies. Qual Life Res 25: 1103 – 1112.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKyte DG, Calvert M, Van der Wees PJ, et al. 2015. An introduction to patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy 10: 119 – 125.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreenhalgh J, Abhyankar P, McCluskey S, et al. 2013. How do doctors refer to patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMS) in oncology consultations. Qual Life Res 22: 939 – 950.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilliams JW, Mulrow CD, Kroenke K, et al. 1999. Case‐finding for depression in primary care: a randomized trial. Am J Med 106: 36 – 43.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceValderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, et al. 2008. The impact of measuring patient‐reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 7: 179 – 193.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEspallargues M, Valderas JM, Alonso J. 2000. Provision of feedback on perceived health status to health care professionals: a systematic review of its impact. Med Care 38: 175 – 186.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreenhalgh J, Meadows K. 1999. The effectiveness of the use of patient‐based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J Eval Clin Pract 5: 401 – 416.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. 2006. Impact of patient reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 12: 559 – 568.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoyce MB, Browne JP. 2013. Does providing feedback on patient‐reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Qual Life Res 22: 2265 – 2278.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. 2014. The experiences of professionals with using information from patient‐reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf 23: 508 – 518.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGonçalves Bradley DC, Gibbons C, Ricci‐Cabello I, et al. 2015. Routine provision of information on patient‐reported outcome measures to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3: CD011589.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGilbody SM, House AO, Sheldon TA. 2001. Routine administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety: systematic review. Br Med J 322: 406 – 409.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKnaup C, Koesters M, Schoefer D, et al. 2009. Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist mental healthcare: meta‐analysis. Br J Psychiatry 195: 15 – 22.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhalid A. 2013. Routine administration of standardized questionnaires that assess aspects of patients’ quality of life in medical oncology clinics: a systematic review. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 25: 63 – 70.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEtkind SN, Daveson BA, Kwok W, et al. 2014. Capture, transfer, and feedback of patient‐centered outcomes data in palliative care populations: does it make a difference? A systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 49: 611 – 624.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrägeloh CU, Czuba KJ, Billington DR, et al. 2014. Using feedback from patient‐reported outcome measures in mental health services: a scoping study and typology. Psych Serv 66: 224 – 241.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHowell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K, et al. 2015. Patient‐reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol 26: 1846 – 1858.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceValderas JM, Espallargues M, Kotzeva A, et al. 2010. Assessing the impact of routinely measuring patient‐reported outcomes in clinical practice: critical appraisal of 34 randomized clinical trials. International Society of Quality of Life Research. Qual Life Res 19: 11.
dc.identifier.citedreferencedeVet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. 2011. Measurement in Medicine. Cambridge: University printing House. p 337.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStreiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. 2008. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 399.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStreiner D. 2003. Clinimetrics vs. psychometrics: an unnecessary distinction. J Clin Epidemiol 56: 1142 – 1145.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeinstein AR. 1987. Clinimetrics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFayers PM, Machin D. 2007. Quality of life, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley & Sons. p 544.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFDA Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/FDA%20PRO%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed Oct 15, 2015.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBasch E. 2010. The missing voice of patients in drug safety reporting. N Engl J Med 362: 865 – 869.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLipscomb J, Reeve BB, Clauser SB, et al. 2007. Patient reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: taking stock, moving forward. J Clin Oncol 25: 5133 – 5140.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, et al. 2007. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care 45: S12 – S21.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, et al. 2007. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health‐related quality of life item banks: plans for the patient‐reported outcomes measurement Information system (PROMIS). Med Care 45: S22 – S31.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiu HH, Cella D, Gershon G, et al. 2010. Representativeness of the PROMIS internet panel. J Clin Epidemiol 63: 1169 – 1178.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRothrock NE, Hays RD, Spritzer K, et al. 2010. Relative to the general US population, chronic diseases are associated with poorer health‐related quality of life as measured by the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol 63: 1195 – 1204.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. 2010. The Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self‐reported health outcome item banks: 2005‐2008. J Clin Epidemiol 63: 1179 – 1194.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePROMIS standards http://www.nihpromis.org/Documents/PROMIS_Standards_050212.pdf
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNahm ML, Pieper CF, Cunningham MM. 2008. Quantifying data quality for clinical trials using electronic data capture. PLoS ONE 3: e3049.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, et al. 2010. The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient‐reported outcomes in clinical research. J Appl Meas 11: 304 – 314.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGershon RC, Rothrock NE, Hanrahan RT, et al. 2010. The development of a clinical outcomes survey research application: assessment CenterSM. Qual Life Res 19: 677 – 685.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSanders C, Egger M, Donovan J, et al. 1998. Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: bibliographic study. BMJ 317: 1191 – 1194.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSoreide K, Soreide AH. 2013. Using patient reported outcome measures for improved decision making in patients with gastrointestinal cancer‐ the last clinical frontier in surgical oncology ? Front Oncol 3: 157.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBryan S, Whitehurst D. Patient‐reported outcome measurement (PROMs) in British Columbia: What has been achieved so far and where next? Quality Forum 2013, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications, (3rd Ed). 2012. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTerwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. 2007. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60: 34 – 42.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. 2010. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health‐related patient‐reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63: 737 – 745.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, et al. 2002. Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11: 193 – 205.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceValderos JM, Ferrer M, Mendivil J, et al. 2008. Development of EMPRO: a tool for the standardized assessment of patient‐reported outcome measures. Value Health 11: 700 – 708.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. 2010. 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 19: 539 – 549.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTerwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, et al. 2012. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 21: 651.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCOSMIN Checklist with 4‐point scale. http://www.cosmin.nl/cosmin_checklist.html. Accessed January 4th, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHuang H, Grant JA, Miller BS, et al. 2015. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient‐reported outcome instruments for use in patients with rotator cuff disease. Am J Sports Med 43: 2572.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGagnier JJ, Mullins M, Huang W. 2017. Patient reported outcome questionnaires for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of psychometric properties and methodological quality. J of Arthroplasty 32: 1688 – 1697.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJia Y, Huang H, Gagnier JJ. 2017. Patient Reported outcome questionnaires for foot and ankle conditions: a systematic review of psychometric properties and methodological quality. Qual of Life Res https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1542-4. [Epub ahead of print].
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, et al. 2012. Measurement properties of disease‐specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 21: 659.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, et al. 2003. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (PhilaPa 1976) 28: 1290.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, et al. 2000. Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomized controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 176: 249 – 252.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMercieca‐Bebber RL, Perreca A, King M, et al. 2016. Patient‐reported outcome in head and neck and thyroid cancer randomized controlled trials: a systematic review of completeness of reporting and impact on interpretation. Europ J Cancer 56: 144 – 161.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCalvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, et al. 2013. Reporting of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA 309: 814 – 822.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrundage M, Blazeby J, Revicki D, et al. 2013. Patient‐reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Qual Life Res 22: 1161 – 1175.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, et al. 2013. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient‐reported outcome measures used in patient‐centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 22: 1889 – 1905.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSPIRIT‐PRO Extension. http://www.equator‐network.org/2016/10/10/spirit‐pro‐extension‐stakeholder‐survey‐invitation/. Accessed January 6th, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTheodoulou A, Bramwell DC, Spiteri AC, et al. 2016. The use of scoring systems in knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 21: 2364 – 2370.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGagnier JJ, Robbins C, Huang W. Patient reported outcome measures for rotator cuff disease: quality and potential for biased estimates of treatment effect. (personal communication).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilliamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. 2012. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 13: 132.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. 2010. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 340: c365.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClarke M. 2007. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 8: 39.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, et al. 2013. Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? A survey of the Coordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials 14: 21.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, et al. 2007. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials 8: 38.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoers M, Kirwan JR, Wells G, et al. 2014. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT Filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 67: 745 – 753.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoers M, Kirwan JR, Gossec L, et al. 2014. How to choose core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT 11 approves Filter 2.0. J Rhuematol 41: 1025 – 1030.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClement RC, Welander A, Stowell C, et al. 2015. A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain. Acta Orthopaedica 86: 523 – 533.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChiarotta A, Deyo RA, Terwee CB, et al. 2015. Core outcome domain for clinical trials in non‐specific low back pain. Europ Spine J 24: 1127 – 1142.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWylde V, Mackichan F, Bruce J, et al. 2014. Assessment of chronic post‐surgical pain after knee replacement: development of a core outcome set. Europ J Pain 19: 611 – 620.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaywood KL, Griffin XL, Achten J, et al. 2014. Developing a core outcome set for hip fracture trials. Bone Joint J 96‐B: 1016 – 1023.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuchbinder R, Page M, Huang H, et al. 2017. A preliminary core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders: a report from the OMERACT 2016 Shoulder Core Outcome Set Special Interest Group. J of Rheumatology pii: jrheum.161123. [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.161123
dc.identifier.citedreferencePage M, Huang H, Verhagen A, et al. 2016. Identifying a core set of outcome domains to measure in clinical trials for shoulder disorders: a modified Delphi study. RMD Open 2(2):e000380. eCollection 2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000380 (Accepted).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDoldhahn JB, Ladd D, Macdermid A, et al. 2014. Recommendation for measuring clinical outcome in distal radius fractures: a core set of domains for standardized reporting in clinical practice and research. Arch Orthopaed Trauma Surg 134: 197 – 205.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlack N. 2013. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 346: 19 – 21.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeVeliis RF. 2012. Scale development: theory and applications, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. p 205.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCappelleri JC, Zou KH, Bushmakin AG, et al. 2014. Patient‐reported outcomes: measurement, implementation and interpretation. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group. p 331.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang D, Jones MH, Khair MM, et al. 2010. Patient‐reported outcome measures for the knee. J Knee Surg 23: 137151.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShen Y, Qiang W, Gagnier JJ. 2016. Patient reported outcome measures for anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a systematic review of psychometric evidence. (submitted).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGagnier JJ, Huang W, Mullins M. 2016. Patient Reported outcome questionnaires for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of psychometric properties and methodological quality. (in‐press).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan der Leeden M, Steultjens MP, Terwee CB, et al. 2008. A systematic review of instruments measuring foot function, foot pain, and foot‐related disability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 15: 1257 – 1269.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEechaute C, Vaes P, Van Aerschot L, et al. 2007. The clinimetric qualities of patient‐assessed instrument for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8: 6.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMichener LA, Leggin BG. 2001. A review of self‐report scales for the assessment of functional limitation and disability of the shoulder. J Hand Ther 14: 68 – 76.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, et al. 2004. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rhuem Dis 63: 335 – 341.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchmidt S, Ferrer M, Gonzalez M, et al. 2014. Evaluation of shoulder‐specific patient‐reported outcome measures: a systematic and standardized comparison of available evidence. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23: 434 – 444.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRouleau DM, Faber K, MacDermid JC. 2010. Systematic review of patient‐administered shoulder functional scores on instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19: 1121 – 1128.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeskula DR, Lott J. 2001. Defining and measuring functional limitations and disability in the athletic shoulder. J Sport Rehab 10: 221 – 231.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePuga VO, Lopes AD, Costa LO. 2012. Assessment of cross cultural adaptation and measurement properties of self‐report outcome measures relevant to shoulder disability in Portuguese: a systematic review. Rev Bras Fisioter 16: 85 – 93.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHill BE, Williams G, Biolocerkowski AE. 2011. Clinimetric evaluation of questionnaires used to assess activity after traumatic brachial plexus injury in adults: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabilit 92: 2082 – 2089.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDorwrick AS, Gabbe BJ, Wiliiamson OD, et al. 2005. Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremoity following trauma: a review. Injury 36: 468 – 476.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThe B, Reininga IH, El Moumini M, et al. 2013. Elbow‐specific clinical rating systems: extent of established validity, reliability and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22: 1380 – 1394.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchoneveld K, Wittink H, Takken T. 2009. Clinimetric evaluation of measurement tools used in hand therapy to assess activity and participation. J Hand Ther 22: 221 – 235.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan de Ven‐Stevens LA, Munneke M, Terwee CB, et al. 2009. Clinimetric properties of instruments to assess activities in patients with hand injury: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90: 151 – 269.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSambanadam SN, Priyanka P, Gul A, et al. 2008. Critical analysis of outcome measures used in the assessment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Int Orthop 32: 497 – 504.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoang‐Kim A, Pegreffi F, Moroni A, et al. 2011. Measuring wrist and hand function: common scales and checklists. Injury 42: 253 – 258.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBain GI, Bialocerkowski A. 2000. A systematic review of the content and quality of wrist outcome instrument. Int J Qual Health Care 12: 149 – 157.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMisailidou V, Mailliou P, Beneka A, et al. 2010. Assessment of patients with neck pain: a review of definitions, selection criteria and measurement tools. J Chiropr Med 9: 49 – 59.
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Koning CH, van den Heuvel F SP, Staal JB, et al. 2008. Clinimetric evaluation of active range of motion measures in patients with non‐specific neck pain: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 17: 905 – 21.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHolly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, et al. 2009. Functional outcomes assessment for cervical degenerative disease. J Neurosurg Spine 11: 238 – 244.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePietrobon R., Coeytaux RR, Carey TS, et al. 2002. Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction. Spine (PhilaPa 1976) 27: 515 – 522.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchellingerhout JM, Heymans MW, Ferhagen AP, et al. 2011. Measurement properties of translated versions of neck‐specific questionnaires: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 11: 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-87
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGray H, Adefolarin AT, Howe TE. 2011. A systematic review of instruments for the assessment of work‐related psychosocial factors (Blue Flags) in individuals with non‐specific low back pain. Man Ther 16: 531 – 543.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan der Meer S, Trippolini MA, van der Palen J, et al. 2013. Which instruments can detect submaximal physical and functional capacity in patients with chronic nonspecific back pain? A systematic review. Spine (PhilaPa 1976) 38: 1608 – 1615.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMokkink LB, Terwee CB, Startford PW, et al. 2009. Evaluation of the methodological quality of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 18: 313 – 333.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEmery MP, Perrier LL, Acquadro C. 2005. Patient‐Reported outcome and quality of life instruments database (PROQOLID): frequently asked questions. Health Qual Life Outcomes 3: 12.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
jor23604_am.pdf
Size:
570.1KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
jor23604.pdf
Size:
308.5KB
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.