Ian Young, James Dunning, Firas Mourad, James Escaloni, Paul Bliton, César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas
{"title":"肘关节外侧肌腱病变患者的数字疼痛评定量表、患者评定网球肘评估量表和网球肘功能量表的临床分析。","authors":"Ian Young, James Dunning, Firas Mourad, James Escaloni, Paul Bliton, César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas","doi":"10.1080/09593985.2025.2450090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is conflicting clinimetric data on the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) and a paucity of evidence regarding the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and tennis elbow function scale (TEFS) in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Perform a comprehensive clinimetric analysis of the NPRS, PRTEE, and TEFS in a sample of patients (<i>n</i> = 143) with lateral elbow tendinopathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Establish the reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, meaningful clinically important difference (MCID), and minimal detectable change (MDC<sub>90</sub>) values for the NPRS, PRTEE, and TEFS at the 3-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The NPRS [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>): 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17-0.78], PRTEE (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.21-0.86), and the TEFS (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.14-0.90) exhibited moderate reliability. All three outcomes exhibited excellent responsiveness [NPRS: area under the curve (AUC): 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98]; PRTEE: (AUC: 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99); TEFS: (AUC: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-0.98). The MCID and MDC<sub>90</sub> were 2.3 and 1.4 for the NPRS, 14.8 and 9.7 for the PRTEE, and 7.5 and 5.7 for the TEFS, respectively. All three patients reported outcome measures also demonstrated strong construct validity (Pearson's r from 0.71 to 0.83, <i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The NPRS, PRTEE, and TEFS are clinimetrically sound patient reported outcome measures for patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy at a 3-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Registration at clinicaltrials.gov: </strong>NCT03167710.</p>","PeriodicalId":48699,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinimetric analysis of the numeric pain rating scale, patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation, and tennis elbow function scale in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy.\",\"authors\":\"Ian Young, James Dunning, Firas Mourad, James Escaloni, Paul Bliton, César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09593985.2025.2450090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is conflicting clinimetric data on the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) and a paucity of evidence regarding the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and tennis elbow function scale (TEFS) in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Perform a comprehensive clinimetric analysis of the NPRS, PRTEE, and TEFS in a sample of patients (<i>n</i> = 143) with lateral elbow tendinopathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Establish the reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, meaningful clinically important difference (MCID), and minimal detectable change (MDC<sub>90</sub>) values for the NPRS, PRTEE, and TEFS at the 3-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The NPRS [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>): 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17-0.78], PRTEE (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.21-0.86), and the TEFS (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.14-0.90) exhibited moderate reliability. All three outcomes exhibited excellent responsiveness [NPRS: area under the curve (AUC): 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98]; PRTEE: (AUC: 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99); TEFS: (AUC: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-0.98). The MCID and MDC<sub>90</sub> were 2.3 and 1.4 for the NPRS, 14.8 and 9.7 for the PRTEE, and 7.5 and 5.7 for the TEFS, respectively. All three patients reported outcome measures also demonstrated strong construct validity (Pearson's r from 0.71 to 0.83, <i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The NPRS, PRTEE, and TEFS are clinimetrically sound patient reported outcome measures for patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy at a 3-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Registration at clinicaltrials.gov: </strong>NCT03167710.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48699,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2025.2450090\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2025.2450090","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinimetric analysis of the numeric pain rating scale, patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation, and tennis elbow function scale in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy.
Background: Currently, there is conflicting clinimetric data on the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) and a paucity of evidence regarding the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and tennis elbow function scale (TEFS) in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy.
Objective: Perform a comprehensive clinimetric analysis of the NPRS, PRTEE, and TEFS in a sample of patients (n = 143) with lateral elbow tendinopathy.
Methods: Establish the reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, meaningful clinically important difference (MCID), and minimal detectable change (MDC90) values for the NPRS, PRTEE, and TEFS at the 3-month follow-up.
Results: The NPRS [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1): 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17-0.78], PRTEE (ICC2,1: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.21-0.86), and the TEFS (ICC2,1: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.14-0.90) exhibited moderate reliability. All three outcomes exhibited excellent responsiveness [NPRS: area under the curve (AUC): 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98]; PRTEE: (AUC: 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99); TEFS: (AUC: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-0.98). The MCID and MDC90 were 2.3 and 1.4 for the NPRS, 14.8 and 9.7 for the PRTEE, and 7.5 and 5.7 for the TEFS, respectively. All three patients reported outcome measures also demonstrated strong construct validity (Pearson's r from 0.71 to 0.83, p < .001).
Conclusion: The NPRS, PRTEE, and TEFS are clinimetrically sound patient reported outcome measures for patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy at a 3-month follow-up.
期刊介绍：
The aim of Physiotherapy Theory and Practice is to provide an international, peer-reviewed forum for the publication, dissemination, and discussion of recent developments and current research in physiotherapy/physical therapy. The journal accepts original quantitative and qualitative research reports, theoretical papers, systematic literature reviews, clinical case reports, and technical clinical notes. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice; promotes post-basic education through reports, reviews, and updates on all aspects of physiotherapy and specialties relating to clinical physiotherapy.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
