ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2018
Validation of the Polish version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index in patients following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cross-cultural adaptions and measurement properties of the WORC (Western Ontario rotator cuff index): a systematic review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Pooled it
- Adaptation of the Upper Limb Functional Index (ULFI) to a Polish version and validation in patients with upper limb musculoskeletal disorders.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2024Article
- A Comparison Study of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, and the Constant-Murley Score with Objective Assessment of External Rotator Muscle Strength and Pain in Patients after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- How to Assess Shoulder Functionality: A Systematic Review of Existing Validated Outcome Measures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) is a joint specific outcome tool that assesses the quality of life in patients with various rotator cuff problems. Our purpose was to evaluate selected psychometric characteristics (internal consistency, validity, reliability and agreement) of the Polish version of WORC in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.
methodsSixty-nine subjects took part in the study with a mean age 55.5 (range 40-65). All had undergone arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in 2015-2016. Data from 57 patients in whom symptoms in the shoulder joint had not changed within 10-14 days were analyzed in a WORC test-retest using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Minimal Detectable Change (MDC). WORC was compared to the short version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDash) and the Short Form-36 v. 2.0 (SF-36).
resultsHigh internal consistency of 0.94 was found using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Reliability of the WORC resulted in ICC = 0.99, agreement assessed with SEM and MDC amounted to 1.62 and 4.48 respectively. The validity analysis of WORC showed strong correlations with QuickDash and SF-36 PCS (Physical Component Summary), while moderate with SF-36 MCS (Mental Component Summary). WORC had no floor or ceiling effect.
conclusionsThe Polish version of the WORC is a reliable and valid tool with high internal consistency for assessing the quality of life in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.