ArticleJSES international2026
Pain score distribution: an expert elicitation study for distal humerus hemiarthroplasty and total elbow arthroplasty using a validated numerical patient rated outcome-measure in trauma.
Article in JSES international, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypothesis: With equal numbers of adults with unreconstructable distal humerus fractures undergoing total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and distal humerus hemiarthroplasty (DHH) a randomized trial is needed to compare the interventions. Patients have identified pain as the key outcome. There are no data on pain outcomes using a validated pain instrument to plan a trial. This study aims to use expert elicitation to produce probability distributions for the Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) pain score at 12 months in adults undergoing TEA or DHH for trauma. Methods: Using the Sheffield Expert Elicitation Framework seven experts were recruited and provided with a summary of current knowledge on pain outcomes from a systematic review. They were asked to consider their median of the PREE pain score at 12 months after a TEA for acute trauma, their difference in the median PREE pain scores between TEA and DHH, and their standard deviation (SD) of the PREE pain score after TEA and DHH. The rational independent observer concept was used to achieve consensus. Results: The elicited median value for the PREE pain at 12 months after TEA for acute trauma was 13.6/50 (interquartile range 10.6 to 16.8). The estimated median of the difference in PREE pain scores was 3.4 (interquartile range -0.3 to 7.1). The elicited standard distribution of PREE pain scores was 9 (SD 2.2), and after DHH was 12 (SD 3.0). Conclusion: Probability distributions for pain outcomes measured using the PREE pain subscale following DHH and TEA for acute trauma in adults generated by expert elicitation indicate an expectation of small differences between interventions. A noninferiority randomized trial using the PREE pain subscale as the primary outcome at 12 months could be conducted to explore whether the possible advantages of DHH, such as lower cost and reduced adverse events, are supported.
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.