ArticleDer Orthopade2016
[Validation of the German version of the Oxford Elbow Score : A cross-sectional study].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Estimating minimal clinically important differences in primary elective total elbow arthroplasty using distribution-based methods.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2026Article
- Residual articular incongruity is not a predictor of poor functional outcomes in operatively treated intra-articular elbow fractures.JSES international · 2025Article
- High correlation of the subjective elbow value with Mayo Elbow Performance Score and Oxford Elbow Score in patients with elbow dislocation.JSES international · 2023Article
- Reliability, validity and critical appraisal of the cross-cultural adapted German version of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS-G).Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Validation of the cross-cultural adapted Italian version of the Oxford Elbow Score.JSES international · 2021Article
- Good outcome using anatomically pre-formed buttress plates for anteromedial facet fractures of the coronoid-a retrospective study of twenty-four patients.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElbow complaints are complex problems leading to severe consequences for affected people and the healthcare system. The German version of the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) is the first German-speaking instrument that specifically measures elbow complaints from the patient's perspective and changes of their health status.
objectiveThe aim of this study is the validation of the German version of the OES. In this context the internal consistency and the construct validity were investigated. MATERIALS AND
methods59 patients with elbow complaints completed the German version of the OES, the DASH and the SF-36 in a cross-sectional study. The internal consistency was calculated with Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Spearman's correlation coefficients were used to confirm construct validity.
resultsCronbach's alpha for pain, function and psychological subscales was 0.88, 0.81 and 0.90, respectively. The whole questionnaire presents a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.93. Convergent construct validity was confirmed with correlation coefficients containing values of -0.84, -0.77 and -0.82 compared to DASH and values ranging from 0.41 to 0.80 compared with the physical domains of the SF-36. The divergent construct validity presented values ranging from 0.07 to 0.20 with the SF-36 domains of "general health perception" and "mental health".
conclusionThe German OES is an internal consistent instrument with good convergent and divergent construct validity. Other aspects of the validity, the reliability and the responsiveness should be confirmed through further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27385387What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.