Background: Oxford Elbow Score, abbreviated OES, is a tool used for measurement of a patient’s experience post elbow surgery. The tool is formulated as a questionnaire. OES has three subscales: pain, elbow function and social-psychological effects. The patient may complete the questionnaire and the results used as an outcome measure post elbow surgery. Objectives: The study aims to develop and evaluate the Arabic version of the OES for reliability, validity concerning patients after elbow trauma and surgery. Material and Methods: Fifty two patients participated in this survey at the baseline (14 days after the operation) and follow-up (after 60 days). We calculated internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. Also, Pearson’s correlation was calculated for construct validity verification. Results: The values for Cronbach’s alpha for psychological, function and pain subscales were 0.701, 0.704 and 0.779, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for the questionnaire had a value of 0.743. We confirmed construct validity using correlation coefficients of values $- 0.820$ , $- 0.750$ and $- 0.800$ as compared to DASH. Conclusion: The Arabic OES is an internal consistent tool with good construct validity, which can be used to estimate the patient’s condition after the elbow surgery.

Keywords:

References

1. Buchbinder R et al. Surgery for lateral elbow pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1 :CD003525, 2002. Google Scholar
2. Byrne BM. Adaptation of assessment scales in cross-national research: Issues, guidelines, and caveats. Int Perspect Psychol 5(1) :51–65, 2016. Crossref, Google Scholar
3. Dawson J et al. The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90 :466–473, 2008. Crossref, Google Scholar
4. de Haan J, Goei H, Schep NW, Tuinebreijer WE, Patka P, den Hartog D. The reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the Oxford elbow score. J Orthop Surg Res 6(1) :39, 2011. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
5. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide (Practical Guides to Biostatistics and Epidemiology). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011. Crossref, Google Scholar
6. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes. John Wiley & Sons, Manhattan, 2013. Google Scholar
7. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines, J Clin Epidemiol 46 :1417–1432, 1993, https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. Haywood KL. Patient-reported outcome: Measuring what matters or just another paper exercise? Musculoskelet Care 4 :63–66, 2006. Crossref, Google Scholar
9. Hudak 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 29 :602–608, 1996, PubMed PMID:8773720. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. Jenkinson C (ed.). Measuring health and medical outcomes: An overview. In Measuring Health and Medical Outcomes. UCL Press, London, pp. 1–6, 1994. Google Scholar
11. Kennedy CA et al. Measurement properties of the quick DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the quick DASH: A systematic review. Qual Life Res 22 :2509–2547, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0362-4, PubMed PMID:23479209. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. Marquardt J, Schöttker-Königer T, Schäfer A. Validierung der deutschen version des Oxford elbow score: Eine querschnittsstudie, Oxford elbow score: A cross-sectional study. Orthopade 45(8) :695–700, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-016-3292-3 (in German). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
13. Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, Caughey GE. Tools for assessment of the appropriateness of prescribing and association with patient-related outcomes: A systematic review. Drugs Aging 35(1) :43–60, 2018. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
14. Plaschke HC, Jørgensen A, Thillemann TM, Brorson S, Olsen BS. Validation of the Danish version of the Oxford elbow score. Dan Med J 60(10) :A4714, 2013. Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. Pynsent P, Fairbank J, Carr A. Outcome Measures in Orthopaedics. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1994. Google Scholar
16. Younis F, Sultan J, Dix S, Hughes PJ. The range of the Oxford shoulder score in the asymptomatic population: A marker for post-operative improvement. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93 :629–633, 2011. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar