Constant-Murley Score: systematic review and standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies
Purpose The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Constant–Murley Score (CMS) in various shoulder pathologies, based on a systematic review and expert standardized evaluations. Methods A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Titles and...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Quality of life research 2018-09, Vol.27 (9), p.2217-2226 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2226 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 2217 |
| container_title | Quality of life research |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Vrotsou, Kalliopi Ávila, Mónica Machón, Mónica Mateo-Abad, Maider Pardo, Yolanda Garin, Olatz Zaror, Carlos González, Nerea Escobar, Antonio Cuéllar, Ricardo |
| description | Purpose The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Constant–Murley Score (CMS) in various shoulder pathologies, based on a systematic review and expert standardized evaluations. Methods A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and finally the included articles were grouped according to patients' pathologies. Two expert evaluators independently assessed the CMS properties of reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, interpretability and burden score in each group, using the EMPRO (Evaluating Measures of Patient Reported Outcomes) tool. The CMS properties were assessed per attribute and overall for each considered group. Only the concept and measurement model was assessed globally. Results Five individual pathologies (i.e. subacromial, fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder) and two additional groups (i.e. various pathologies and healthy subjects) were considered. Overall EMPRO scores ranged from 58.6 for subacromial to 30.6 points for instability. Responsiveness to change was the only quality to obtain at least 50 points across all groups, but for frozen shoulder. Insufficient information was obtained in relation to the concept and measurement model and great variability was seen in the other evaluated attributes. Conclusions The current evidence does not support the CMS as a gold standard in shoulder evaluation. Its use is advisable for subacromial pathology; but data are inconclusive for other shoulder conditions. Prospective studies exploring the psychometric properties of the scale, particularly for fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder are needed. Level of evidence Systematic review. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11136-018-1875-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6132990</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>44856466</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44856466</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c534t-debbcfe9797e182e8085835c25675004e47a7a733bbff68718ced4433c16f2dd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUuP0zAUhSMEYsrAD2ABisSGTcCv-MFiJFTxkgaxANaWY9-0rlK72ElR-fU4ZCgDC2RZluXvnHuvT1U9xugFRki8zBhjyhuEZYOlaBtxp1rhVtCGcKbuViukOGkUZfSiepDzDiEkFSL3qwuiBJOS0FXVr2PIowlj83FKA5zqzzYmeFXnUx5hb0Zv6wRHD99rE1w9k84k53-Aq-FohqkQMdQ-1M73PSQIY523cRocpPpgxm0c4sZDfljd682Q4dHNeVl9ffvmy_p9c_3p3Yf16-vGtpSNjYOusz0ooQRgSUAi2UraWtJy0SLEgAlTFqVd1_dcCiwtOMYotZj3xDl6WV0tvoep24OzpZ9kBn1Ifm_SSUfj9d8vwW_1Jh41x5QohYoBXgxsnqxOYCFZM_4Sni_zJkgQTdv5P4vm-U3RFL9NkEe999nCMJgAccqFpZJwLpUs6LN_0F2cUihfMlNcYcz47SZSzDlBfx4AIz0nr5fkdUlez8lrUTRPb09-VvyOugBkAXJ5ChtIf0r_z_XJItrlMaazKWOy5Yxz-hP8HcUH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2036911460</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Constant-Murley Score: systematic review and standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Recercat</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Vrotsou, Kalliopi ; Ávila, Mónica ; Machón, Mónica ; Mateo-Abad, Maider ; Pardo, Yolanda ; Garin, Olatz ; Zaror, Carlos ; González, Nerea ; Escobar, Antonio ; Cuéllar, Ricardo</creator><creatorcontrib>Vrotsou, Kalliopi ; Ávila, Mónica ; Machón, Mónica ; Mateo-Abad, Maider ; Pardo, Yolanda ; Garin, Olatz ; Zaror, Carlos ; González, Nerea ; Escobar, Antonio ; Cuéllar, Ricardo</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Constant–Murley Score (CMS) in various shoulder pathologies, based on a systematic review and expert standardized evaluations. Methods A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and finally the included articles were grouped according to patients' pathologies. Two expert evaluators independently assessed the CMS properties of reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, interpretability and burden score in each group, using the EMPRO (Evaluating Measures of Patient Reported Outcomes) tool. The CMS properties were assessed per attribute and overall for each considered group. Only the concept and measurement model was assessed globally. Results Five individual pathologies (i.e. subacromial, fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder) and two additional groups (i.e. various pathologies and healthy subjects) were considered. Overall EMPRO scores ranged from 58.6 for subacromial to 30.6 points for instability. Responsiveness to change was the only quality to obtain at least 50 points across all groups, but for frozen shoulder. Insufficient information was obtained in relation to the concept and measurement model and great variability was seen in the other evaluated attributes. Conclusions The current evidence does not support the CMS as a gold standard in shoulder evaluation. Its use is advisable for subacromial pathology; but data are inconclusive for other shoulder conditions. Prospective studies exploring the psychometric properties of the scale, particularly for fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder are needed. Level of evidence Systematic review.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0962-9343</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2649</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1875-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29748823</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer</publisher><subject>Adult ; Arthritis ; Constant–Murley score ; EMPRO tool ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Psychometric properties ; Psychometrics - methods ; Public Health ; Quality of Life - psychology ; Quality of Life Research ; Quantitative psychology ; Reproducibility of Results ; REVIEW ; Shoulder - pathology ; Shoulder pathologies ; Sociology ; Standardized evaluation ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Quality of life research, 2018-09, Vol.27 (9), p.2217-2226</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature AG 2018</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><rights>Quality of Life Research is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved. © 2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess Copyright © The Author(s) 2018. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a></rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c534t-debbcfe9797e182e8085835c25675004e47a7a733bbff68718ced4433c16f2dd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c534t-debbcfe9797e182e8085835c25675004e47a7a733bbff68718ced4433c16f2dd3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3296-3923</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44856466$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44856466$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,803,885,26974,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29748823$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vrotsou, Kalliopi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ávila, Mónica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machón, Mónica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mateo-Abad, Maider</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pardo, Yolanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garin, Olatz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaror, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González, Nerea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Escobar, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuéllar, Ricardo</creatorcontrib><title>Constant-Murley Score: systematic review and standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies</title><title>Quality of life research</title><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><description>Purpose The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Constant–Murley Score (CMS) in various shoulder pathologies, based on a systematic review and expert standardized evaluations. Methods A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and finally the included articles were grouped according to patients' pathologies. Two expert evaluators independently assessed the CMS properties of reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, interpretability and burden score in each group, using the EMPRO (Evaluating Measures of Patient Reported Outcomes) tool. The CMS properties were assessed per attribute and overall for each considered group. Only the concept and measurement model was assessed globally. Results Five individual pathologies (i.e. subacromial, fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder) and two additional groups (i.e. various pathologies and healthy subjects) were considered. Overall EMPRO scores ranged from 58.6 for subacromial to 30.6 points for instability. Responsiveness to change was the only quality to obtain at least 50 points across all groups, but for frozen shoulder. Insufficient information was obtained in relation to the concept and measurement model and great variability was seen in the other evaluated attributes. Conclusions The current evidence does not support the CMS as a gold standard in shoulder evaluation. Its use is advisable for subacromial pathology; but data are inconclusive for other shoulder conditions. Prospective studies exploring the psychometric properties of the scale, particularly for fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder are needed. Level of evidence Systematic review.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Arthritis</subject><subject>Constant–Murley score</subject><subject>EMPRO tool</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Psychometric properties</subject><subject>Psychometrics - methods</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of Life - psychology</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>REVIEW</subject><subject>Shoulder - pathology</subject><subject>Shoulder pathologies</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Standardized evaluation</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0962-9343</issn><issn>1573-2649</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>XX2</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUuP0zAUhSMEYsrAD2ABisSGTcCv-MFiJFTxkgaxANaWY9-0rlK72ElR-fU4ZCgDC2RZluXvnHuvT1U9xugFRki8zBhjyhuEZYOlaBtxp1rhVtCGcKbuViukOGkUZfSiepDzDiEkFSL3qwuiBJOS0FXVr2PIowlj83FKA5zqzzYmeFXnUx5hb0Zv6wRHD99rE1w9k84k53-Aq-FohqkQMdQ-1M73PSQIY523cRocpPpgxm0c4sZDfljd682Q4dHNeVl9ffvmy_p9c_3p3Yf16-vGtpSNjYOusz0ooQRgSUAi2UraWtJy0SLEgAlTFqVd1_dcCiwtOMYotZj3xDl6WV0tvoep24OzpZ9kBn1Ifm_SSUfj9d8vwW_1Jh41x5QohYoBXgxsnqxOYCFZM_4Sni_zJkgQTdv5P4vm-U3RFL9NkEe999nCMJgAccqFpZJwLpUs6LN_0F2cUihfMlNcYcz47SZSzDlBfx4AIz0nr5fkdUlez8lrUTRPb09-VvyOugBkAXJ5ChtIf0r_z_XJItrlMaazKWOy5Yxz-hP8HcUH</recordid><startdate>20180901</startdate><enddate>20180901</enddate><creator>Vrotsou, Kalliopi</creator><creator>Ávila, Mónica</creator><creator>Machón, Mónica</creator><creator>Mateo-Abad, Maider</creator><creator>Pardo, Yolanda</creator><creator>Garin, Olatz</creator><creator>Zaror, Carlos</creator><creator>González, Nerea</creator><creator>Escobar, Antonio</creator><creator>Cuéllar, Ricardo</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>SpringerOpen</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>XX2</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3296-3923</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180901</creationdate><title>Constant-Murley Score: systematic review and standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies</title><author>Vrotsou, Kalliopi ; Ávila, Mónica ; Machón, Mónica ; Mateo-Abad, Maider ; Pardo, Yolanda ; Garin, Olatz ; Zaror, Carlos ; González, Nerea ; Escobar, Antonio ; Cuéllar, Ricardo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c534t-debbcfe9797e182e8085835c25675004e47a7a733bbff68718ced4433c16f2dd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Arthritis</topic><topic>Constant–Murley score</topic><topic>EMPRO tool</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Psychometric properties</topic><topic>Psychometrics - methods</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of Life - psychology</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>REVIEW</topic><topic>Shoulder - pathology</topic><topic>Shoulder pathologies</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Standardized evaluation</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vrotsou, Kalliopi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ávila, Mónica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machón, Mónica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mateo-Abad, Maider</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pardo, Yolanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garin, Olatz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaror, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González, Nerea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Escobar, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuéllar, Ricardo</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Recercat</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vrotsou, Kalliopi</au><au>Ávila, Mónica</au><au>Machón, Mónica</au><au>Mateo-Abad, Maider</au><au>Pardo, Yolanda</au><au>Garin, Olatz</au><au>Zaror, Carlos</au><au>González, Nerea</au><au>Escobar, Antonio</au><au>Cuéllar, Ricardo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Constant-Murley Score: systematic review and standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies</atitle><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle><stitle>Qual Life Res</stitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><date>2018-09-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2217</spage><epage>2226</epage><pages>2217-2226</pages><issn>0962-9343</issn><eissn>1573-2649</eissn><abstract>Purpose The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Constant–Murley Score (CMS) in various shoulder pathologies, based on a systematic review and expert standardized evaluations. Methods A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and finally the included articles were grouped according to patients' pathologies. Two expert evaluators independently assessed the CMS properties of reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, interpretability and burden score in each group, using the EMPRO (Evaluating Measures of Patient Reported Outcomes) tool. The CMS properties were assessed per attribute and overall for each considered group. Only the concept and measurement model was assessed globally. Results Five individual pathologies (i.e. subacromial, fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder) and two additional groups (i.e. various pathologies and healthy subjects) were considered. Overall EMPRO scores ranged from 58.6 for subacromial to 30.6 points for instability. Responsiveness to change was the only quality to obtain at least 50 points across all groups, but for frozen shoulder. Insufficient information was obtained in relation to the concept and measurement model and great variability was seen in the other evaluated attributes. Conclusions The current evidence does not support the CMS as a gold standard in shoulder evaluation. Its use is advisable for subacromial pathology; but data are inconclusive for other shoulder conditions. Prospective studies exploring the psychometric properties of the scale, particularly for fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder are needed. Level of evidence Systematic review.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>29748823</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11136-018-1875-7</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3296-3923</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0962-9343 |
| ispartof | Quality of life research, 2018-09, Vol.27 (9), p.2217-2226 |
| issn | 0962-9343 1573-2649 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6132990 |
| source | MEDLINE; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Recercat; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Adult Arthritis Constant–Murley score EMPRO tool Female Humans Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Prospective Studies Psychometric properties Psychometrics - methods Public Health Quality of Life - psychology Quality of Life Research Quantitative psychology Reproducibility of Results REVIEW Shoulder - pathology Shoulder pathologies Sociology Standardized evaluation Surveys and Questionnaires Systematic review |
| title | Constant-Murley Score: systematic review and standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T11%3A11%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Constant-Murley%20Score:%20systematic%20review%20and%20standardized%20evaluation%20in%20different%20shoulder%20pathologies&rft.jtitle=Quality%20of%20life%20research&rft.au=Vrotsou,%20Kalliopi&rft.date=2018-09-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2217&rft.epage=2226&rft.pages=2217-2226&rft.issn=0962-9343&rft.eissn=1573-2649&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11136-018-1875-7&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E44856466%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2036911460&rft_id=info:pmid/29748823&rft_jstor_id=44856466&rfr_iscdi=true |