The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring shoulder function: A systematic review of four questionnaires
Abstract
Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the quality and content of the psychometric evidence relating to 4 shoulder disability scales: the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Methods: We conducted a structured search using 3 databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBase). In total, 71 published primary studies were analyzed. A pair of raters conducted data extraction and critical appraisal using structured tools. A descriptive synthesis was performed. Results: Quality ratings of 55% of the studies reviewed reached a level of ≥75%. Most studies suggest that all 4 questionnaires have excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.90). The 4 questionnaires are strongly correlated (r >0.70) with each other and with a number of similar indices, and the questionnaires were able to differentiate between different populations and disability levels. The minimal detectable change (MDC) is ∼9.4 for the ASES, 10.5 for the DASH, and 18 for the SPADI; the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is ∼6.4 for the ASES and 10.2 for the DASH, and ranges between 8 and 13 for the SPADI. MDC and MCID have not been defined for the SST. Conclusion: The psychometric properties of the ASES, DASH, and SPADI have been shown to be acceptable for clinical use. Conversely, some properties of the SST still need be evaluated, particularly the absolute errors of measurement. Overall, validation studies have focused on less clinically relevant properties (construct validity or group reliability) than estimates of MDC and MCID.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf01593882 · Cited by 2,206
Cited by
Franchignoni, F., Vercelli, S., Giordano, A., Sartorio, F., Bravini, E., & Ferriero, G. (2014) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4893 · Cited by 924
House, G., Burdea, G., Grampurohit, N., Polistico, K., Roll, D., Damiani, F., Hundal, J., & Demesmin, D. (2016) · British Journal of Pain · doi:10.1177/2049463716664370 · Cited by 75
Naunton, J., Street, G., Littlewood, C., Haines, T., & Malliaras, P. (2020) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/0269215520934147 · Cited by 72
Dadgostar, H., Fahimipour, F., Pahlevan Sabagh, A., Arasteh, P., & Razi, M. (2021) · Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · doi:10.1186/s13018-021-02470-x · Cited by 64
Rysstad, T., Grotle, M., Klokk, L. P., & Tveter, A. T. (2020) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03289-z · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Roy, J., MacDermid, J. C., & Woodhouse, L. J.
- Venue
- Arthritis Care & Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-04-29
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 623-632
- ISSN
- 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-0123
- OpenAlex
- W2058554440
- Cited by
- 771
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring shoulder function: A systematic review of four questionnaires. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.24396
- The paper
- Roy, J., MacDermid, J. C., & Woodhouse, L. J. (2009). Measuring shoulder function: A systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Care & Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24396
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.