SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures for idiopathic adhesive capsulitis - recommendations based on analyses of 16 existing questionnaires.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPatient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential to measure the patients' perspective in clinical studies. Like any measurement instrument, a PROM should be valid, reliable, and responsive. Adequate content validity relies on patient input, while construct validity can only be ensured by Modern Test Theory (MTT) models. Inadequate PROMs induce a significant risk of measurement errors. Currently, there is no thorough analysis of PROMs used in clinical research on idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (AC). The aim was to identify all PROMs used to evaluate AC, analyze their content and construct validity, and summarize the results in a recommendation on which PROM is the best for trials on AC.
methodsMusculoskeletal PROMs used to evaluate patients with AC were identified through PubMed searches in November 2024. Development and validity studies were identified for each PROM. Content validity was assessed based on existing guidelines emphasizing the involvement of patients in the development. Construct validity was assessed based on existing guidelines emphasizing the use of MTT models in the analysis. Both content and construct validity were rated from 1 to 5, and a concluding, aggregated assessment was made.
results16 different PROMs, used up to 45 times, were identified. 79 articles on measurement properties were identified and analyzed. None of the PROMs had been developed specifically for patients with AC. Four PROMs were developed by the involvement of patients but with other conditions than AC. Five PROMs had been validated with an MTT model. However, all five possessed inadequate content validity. Hence, it was not possible to identify any PROM with adequate content and construct validity for patients with AC.
conclusionAn adequate PROM for idiopathic AC does not exist and a new condition-specific questionnaire is needed. The existing PROMs should be used with significant reservations and results obtained by these PROMs should be interpreted with caution.
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.