+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review of measures of shoulder pain and functioning using the International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF)

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Shoulder pain is a common condition with prevalence estimates of 7–26% and the associated disability is multi-faceted. For functional assessments in clinic and research, a number of condition-specific and generic measures are available. With the approval of the ICF, a system is now available for the analysis of health status measures. The aims of this systematic literature review were to identify the most frequently addressed aspects of functioning in assessments of shoulder pain and provide an overview of the content of frequently used measures.


          Meaningful concepts of the identified measures were extracted and linked to the most precise ICF categories. Second-level categories with a relative frequency above 1% and the content of measures with at least 5 citations were reported.


          A set of 40 second-level ICF categories were identified in 370 single-item measures and 105 multi-item measures, of these, 28 belonged to activities and participation, 11 to body functions and structures and 1 to environmental factors. The most frequently addressed concepts were: pain; movement-related body functions and structures; sleep, hand and arm use, self-care, household tasks, work and employment, and leisure. Concepts of psycho-social functions and environmental factors were less frequently included. The content overview of commonly used condition-specific and generic measures displayed large variations in the number of included concepts. The most wide-ranging measures, the DASH and ASES were linked to 23 and 16 second-level ICF categories, respectively, whereas the Constant were linked to 7 categories and the SST and the SPADI to 6 categories each.


          This systematic review displayed that measures used for shoulder pain included more than twice as many concepts of activities and participation than concepts of body functions and structures. Environmental factors were scarcely addressed. The huge differences in the content of the condition-specific multi-item measures demonstrates the importance of clarifying the content to select the most appropriate measure both in research and in clinical work. For clinical situations, we propose use of a wide-ranging condition-specific measure that conceptualizes assessments of shoulder pain from a bio-psycho-social perspective. Further research is needed to assess how patient-reported problems in functioning are captured in the commonly used measures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder.

          Several methods have been devised to estimate shoulder function, none of which is entirely satisfactory. The method described in this article is applicable irrespective of the details of the diagnostic or radiologic abnormalities caused by disease or injury. The method records individual parameters and provides an overall clinical functional assessment. It is accurately reproducible by different observers and is sufficiently sensitive to reveal even small changes in function. The method is easy to perform and requires a minimal amount of time for evaluation of large population groups.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches.

            The purpose of this study was to develop a short, reliable, and valid measure of physical function and symptoms related to upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders by shortening the full, thirty-item DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure. Three item-reduction techniques were used on the cross-sectional field-testing data derived from a study of 407 patients with various upper-limb conditions. These techniques were the concept-retention method, the equidiscriminative item-total correlation, and the item response theory (Rasch modeling). Three eleven-item scales were created. Data from a longitudinal cohort study in which the DASH questionnaire was administered to 200 patients with shoulder and wrist/hand disorders were then used to assess the reliability (Cronbach alpha and test-retest reliability) and validity (cross-sectional and longitudinal construct) of the three scales. Results were compared with those derived with the full DASH. The three versions were comparable with regard to their measurement properties. All had a Cronbach alpha of > or = 0.92 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of > or = 0.94. Evidence of construct validity was established (r > or = 0.64 with single-item indices of pain and function). The concept-retention method, the most subjective of the approaches to item reduction, ranked highest in terms of its similarity to the original DASH. The concept-retention version is named the QuickDASH. It contains eleven items and is similar with regard to scores and properties to the full DASH. A comparison of item-reduction approaches suggested that the retention of clinically sensible and important content produced a comparable, if not slightly better, instrument than did more statistically driven approaches.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function.

              The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons have adopted a standardized form for assessment of the shoulder. The form has a patient self-evaluation section and a physician assessment section. The patient self-evaluation section of the form contains visual analog scales for pain and instability and an activities of daily living questionnaire. The activities of daily living questionnaire is marked on a four-point ordinal scale that can be converted to a cumulative activities of daily living index. The patient can complete the self-evaluation portion of the questionnaire in the absence of a physician. The physician assessment section includes an area to collect demographic information and assesses range of motion, specific physical signs, strength, and stability. A shoulder score can be derived from the visual analogue scale score for pain (50%) and the cumulative activities of daily living score (50%). It is hoped that adoption of this instrument to measure shoulder function will facilitate communication between investigators, stimulate multicenter studies, and encourage validity testing of this and other available instruments to measure shoulder function and outcome. Copyright © 1994 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central
                28 February 2013
                : 14
                : 73
                [1 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Postboks 4 Street Olavs plass, Oslo 0130, Norway
                [2 ]Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital Ulleval, Oslo, Norway
                [3 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
                Copyright © 2013 Roe et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Research Article


                Comment on this article