ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2020
Establishing User Error on the Patient-Reported Component of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The reliability of the forgotten joint score for shoulder arthroplasty.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2026Article
- Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for rotator cuff repair surgery.Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2026Article
- A new self-assessment tool following shoulder stabilization surgery, the auto-Walch and auto-Rowe questionnaires.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire developed to facilitate communication among international investigators and to allow comparison of outcomes for patients with shoulder disabilities. Although this PRO measure has been deemed easy to read and understand, patients may make mistakes when completing the questionnaire. PURPOSE: To evaluate the frequency of potential mistakes made by patients completing the ASES score. STUDY
designCross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.
methodsA prospective cross-sectional study was performed for 600 ASES questionnaires completed by patients upon their first visit to 1 of 2 clinic locations (Australian vs Canadian site). Two categories of potential errors were predefined, and then differences in error rates were compared based on demographics (age, sex, and location). To determine whether these methods were reliable, an independent, third reviewer evaluated a subset of questionnaires separately. The interrater reliability was evaluated through use of the Cohen kappa.
resultsThe mean patient age was 49.9 years, and 63% of patients were male. The Cohen kappa was high for both evaluation methods used, at 0.831 and 0.918. On average, 17.9% of patients made at least 1 potential mistake, while an additional 10.4% of patients corrected their own mistakes. No differences in total error rate were found based on baseline demographics. Canadians and Australians had similar rates of error.
conclusionTo ensure the accuracy of the ASES score, this questionnaire should be double checked, as potential mistakes are too frequently made. This attentiveness will ensure that the ASES score remains a valid, reliable, and responsive tool to be used for further shoulder research.
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.