Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Mar 18;6(2):244-51.
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i2.244.

Use of scoring systems for assessing and reporting the outcome results from shoulder surgery and arthroplasty

Affiliations
Review

Use of scoring systems for assessing and reporting the outcome results from shoulder surgery and arthroplasty

Simon Booker et al. World J Orthop. .

Abstract

To investigate shoulder scoring systems used in Europe and North America and how outcomes might be classified after shoulder joint replacement. All research papers published in four major journals in 2012 and 2013 were reviewed for the shoulder scoring systems used in their published papers. A method of identifying how outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty might be used to categorize patients into fair, good, very good and excellent outcomes was explored using the outcome evaluations from patients treated in our own unit. A total of 174 research articles that were published in the four journals used some form of shoulder scoring system. The outcome from shoulder arthroplasty in our unit has been evaluated using the constant score (CS) and the oxford shoulder score and these scores have been used to evaluate individual patient outcomes. CSs of < 30 = unsatisfactory; 30-39 = fair; 40-59 = good; 60-69 = very good; and 70 and over = excellent. The most popular shoulder scoring systems in North America were Simple Shoulder Test and American shoulder and elbow surgeons standard shoulder assessment form score and in Europe CS, Oxford Shoulder Score and DASH score.

Keywords: Arthroplasty; Assessment; Classification; Operations; Patient outcomes; Replacement; Scoring methods; Shoulder joint; Surgery; Surgical therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of articles that used different shoulder scoring systems during 2012 and 2013.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Most popular shoulder scoring systems during 2012 and 2013. ASES: American shoulder and elbow surgeons standard shoulder assessment form; DASH: Disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand; UCLA: University of California-Los Angeles shoulder scale.

References

    1. Fong SS, Ng SS, Luk WS, Chung JW, Chung LM, Tsang WW, Chow LP. Shoulder Mobility, Muscular Strength, and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors with and without Tai Chi Qigong Training. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:787169. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Longo UG, Vasta S, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of patients with rotator cuff pathology. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2011;19:310–320. - PubMed
    1. Noorani AM, Roberts DJ, Malone AA, Waters TS, Jaggi A, Lambert SM, Bayley I. Validation of the Stanmore percentage of normal shoulder assessment. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2012;6:9–14. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Royal College of Surgeons of England. Measuring surgical outcomes. 2013. Available from: http:// www.rcseng.ac.uk/media/media-background-briefings-and-statistics....
    1. Croft P. Measuring up to shoulder pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998;57:65–66. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources