ArticleJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2024
Can a single question replace patient-reported outcomes in the follow-up of elbow arthroplasty? A validation study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bacteriophages in Hip and Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infections: A Promising Tool in the Era of Antibiotic Resistance.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
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
backgroundTo assess the results after elbow arthroplasty it is essential to gather patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the acquisition of PROMs poses a challenge because of potential low literacy, lengthiness and diversity of questionnaires, and questionnaire fatigue. Instead of a questionnaire, patient-reported outcomes can be collected using a single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE), the subjective elbow value (SEV). The aim of this pilot study is to assess the correlation between the SEV and conventionally used patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elbow arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe SEV was added to our follow-up system in 2021, consisting of a scale from 0 to 10 in which the patients are asked to rate the overall functionality of their elbow, 0 corresponds to very poor functionality and 10 to a perfectly functional or healthy elbow. All patients who underwent elbow arthroplasty (total or radial head) and responded to the SEV question were retrospectively identified and included. The correlation between the SEV at the final follow-up and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and between the SEV and the Quick Disbailities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (quickDASH) score was assessed using Pearson's r.
resultsIn total, 82 patients responded to the SEV question and were included in the study, with a median follow-up of 5 years [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7]. Of these patients, 17 (21%) underwent radial head arthroplasty and 65 (79%) total elbow arthroplasty. The Pearson's r for the correlation between SEV and OES was 0.502 (p < 0.001) and between the SEV and the QuickDASH -0.537 (p < 0.001), which correspond to a moderate correlation.
conclusionsThe SEV shows a moderate correlation with conventional PROMs, demonstrating its potential in simplifying the follow-up of elbow arthroplasty, possibly decreasing time, costs, and patients' questionnaire fatigue compared with conventional PROM questionnaires. EVIDENCE LEVEL: III.
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.