Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the orthopaedic Wolf-Motor-Function-Test as functional capacity measure before and after rehabilitation in patients with proximal humeral fractures

Corinna Nerz, Lars Schwickert, Sabine Schölch, Katharina Gordt, Philip-Christian Nolte, Inga Kröger, Peter Augat, Clemens Becker, Corinna Nerz, Lars Schwickert, Sabine Schölch, Katharina Gordt, Philip-Christian Nolte, Inga Kröger, Peter Augat, Clemens Becker

Abstract

Background: The incidence of proximal humeral fractures (PHF) increased by more than 30% over the last decade, which is accompanied by an increased number of operations. However, the evidence on operative vs. non-operative treatment and post-operative treatments is limited and mostly based on expert opinion. It is mandatory to objectively assess functional capacity to compare different treatments. Clinical tools should be valid, reliable and sensitive to change assessing functional capacity after PHFs. This study aimed to analyse inter-rater reliability of the videotaped Wolf-Motor-Function-Test-Orthopaedic (WMFT-O) and the association between the clinical WMFT-O and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and to determine the sensitivity to change of the WMFT-O and the DASH to measure functional capacity before and after rehabilitation in PHF patients.

Methods: Fifty-six patients (61.7 ± 14.7 years) after surgical treatment of PHF were assessed using the WMFT-O at two different time points. To determine inter-rater reliability, the videotaped WMFT-O was evaluated through three blinded raters. Inter-rater agreement was determined by Fleiss' Kappa statistics. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the association between the clinical WMFT-O and the video rating as well as the DASH. Sensitivity to change and responsiveness were analysed for the WMFT-O and the DASH in a subsample of forty patients (53.8 ± 1.4 years) who were assessed before and after a three week robotic-assisted training intervention.

Results: Inter-rater agreement was indicated by Fleiss' Kappa values ranging from 0.33-0.66 for functional capacity and from 0.27-0.54 for quality of movement. The correlation between the clinical WMFT-O and the video rating was higher than 0.77. The correlation between the clinical WMFT-O and the DASH was weak. Sensitivity to change was high for the WMFT-O and the DASH and responsiveness was given. In comparison to the DASH, the sensitivity to change of the WMFT-O was higher.

Conclusion: The overall results indicate that the WMFT-O is a reliable, sensitive and responsive instrument to measure more objectively functional change over time in rehabilitation after PHF. Furthermore, it has been shown that video assessment is eligible for studies to ensure a full blinding of raters.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03100201 . Registered on 28 March 2017. The trial was retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Orthopaedic assessment; Proximal humeral fracture; Reliability; Responsiveness; Sensitivity to change; Shoulder function; Wolf motor function test.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Correlation of the WMFT-O functional capacity and quality of movement clinical rating and video rating (FC Functional capacity, QoM Quality of movement; Pearson correlation coefficient (r); p < 0.001)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Correlation of the WMFT-O functional capacity and quality of movement clinical rating and DASH (FC Functional capacity, QoM Quality of movement; Pearson correlation coefficient (r); p < 0.05)

References

    1. Benzinger P, Riem S, Bauer J, Jaensch A, Becker C, Büchele G, et al. Risk of institutionalization following fragility fractures in older people. Osteoporos Int. 2019;1–8. Epub ahead of print.
    1. Kara H, Bayir A, Ak A, Acar D, Akinci M, Degirmenci S. Trivial trauma induced bilateral proximal end Humerus fracture: two case reports. J Case Rep. 2013;3(2):366–369.
    1. Statistisches Bundesamt. Krankenhausstatistik - Diagnosedaten der Patienten und Patientinnen in Krankenhäusern. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland; c2017 [cited 2019 Feb 25]. Available from: . German.
    1. Bauer M. Klinikinterne analyse epidemiologischer Aspekte der proximalen Humerusfraktur [dissertation]. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen; 2014. [cited 2019 Feb 18]. Available from: . German
    1. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J. Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Januar. 2006;442:87–92.
    1. Kim SH, Szabo RM, Marder RA. Epidemiology of humerus fractures in the United States: nationwide emergency department sample, 2008. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(3):407–414.
    1. Zech A, Hübscher M, Vogt L, Banzer W, Hänsel F, Pfeifer K. Neuromuscular training for rehabilitation of sports injuries: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(10):1831–1841.
    1. Franke S, Ambacher T. Die proximale Humerusfraktur. Obere Extrem. 2012;7(3):137–143.
    1. Handoll HH, Ollivere BJ, Rollins KE. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. c2012;12. Available from: . [cited 2019 Feb 18].
    1. Vincent JI, MacDermid JC, King GJ, Grewal R. Validity and sensitivity to change of patient-reported pain and disability measures for elbow pathologies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(4):263–274.
    1. Westphal T. Reliability and responsiveness of the German version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH) Unfallchirurg. 2007;110(6):548–552.
    1. Oberle C, Becker C, Schölch S, Lenz J-U, Studier-Fischer S, Augat P, et al. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of an adapted Wolf motor function test for older patients with shoulder injuries. Z Für Gerontol Geriatr. 2018;51(3):293–300.
    1. Beaton DE. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine. 2000;25(24):3192–3199.
    1. Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G, Fortin PR, Daltroy L. Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Med Care. 2002;40(4 Suppl):II45–II51.
    1. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1008–1018.
    1. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PMM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab. 2003;12(4):349–362.
    1. VanSwearingen JM, Brach JS. Making geriatric assessment work: selecting useful measures. Phys Ther. 2001;81(6):1233–1252.
    1. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II84–II90.
    1. Nerz C, Schwickert L, Becker C, Studier-Fischer S, Müßig JA, Augat P. Effectiveness of robot-assisted training added to conventional rehabilitation in patients with humeral fracture early after surgical treatment: protocol of a randomised, controlled, multicentre trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):589.
    1. Katzman R, Brown T, Fuld P, Peck A, Schechter R, Schimmel H. Validation of a short orientation-memory-concentration test of cognitive impairment. Am J Psychiatry. 1983;140(6):734–739.
    1. Flansbjer U-B, Drake AM, Downham D, Patten C, Lexell J. Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(2):75–82.
    1. Germann G, Harth A, Wind G, Demir E. Standardisierung und Validierung der deutschen version 2.0 des “disability of arm, shoulder, hand” (DASH)-Fragebogens zur outcome-Messung an der oberen Extremität. Unfallchirurg. 2003;106(1):13–19.
    1. Ryf C, Weymann A. Range of motion - AO Neutral-0 method : measurement and documentation. Stuttgart: Thieme; 1999. p. 116.
    1. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32(7):1635–1639.
    1. Desai AS, Dramis A, Hearnden AJ. Critical appraisal of subjective outcome measures used in the assessment of shoulder disability. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010;92(1):9–13.
    1. Offenbaecher M, Ewert T, Sangha O, Stucki G. Validation of a German version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH-G) J Rheumatol. 2002;29(2):401–402.
    1. Dalton E, Lannin NA, Laver K, Ross L, Ashford S, McCluskey A, et al. Validity, reliability and ease of use of the disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire in adults following stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(24):2504–2511.
    1. Raven EEJ, Haverkamp D, Sierevelt IN, van Montfoort DO, Pöll RG, Blankevoort L, et al. Construct validity and reliability of the disability ofArm, shoulder and hand questionnaire for upper extremity complaints in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(12):2334–2338.
    1. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459–468.
    1. Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. c 1989 27(3) [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: .
    1. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28(7):632.
    1. Sawilowsky Shlomo S. New Effect Size Rules of Thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods. 2009;8(2):597–599.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109.
    1. Eton DT, Yost KJ. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):172–191.
    1. Cella D, Eton DT, Fairclough DL, Bonomi P, Heyes AE, Silberman C, et al. What is a clinically meaningful change on the functional assessment of cancer therapy-lung (FACT-L) questionnaire?: results from eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) study 5592. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(3):285–295.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.
    1. Pereira ND, Michaelsen SM, Menezes IS, Ovando AC, Lima RCM, Teixeira-Salmela LF. Reliability of the Brazilian version of the Wolf Motor function test in adults with hemiparesis. Braz J Phys Ther. 2011;15(3):257–265.
    1. Cohen J. Weighted kappa. Psychol Bull. 1968;70(4):213–220.
    1. Falotico R, Quatto P. Fleiss’ kappa statistic without paradoxes. Qual Quant. 2015;49(2):463–470.
    1. Evans JD. Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing; 1996.
    1. Wu CY, Fu T, Lin KC, Feng CT, Hsieh KP, Yu HW, et al. Assessing the streamlined Wolf Motor function test as an outcome measure for stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(2):194–199.
    1. MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Roth JH. Distal radius fracture: a prospective outcome study of 275 patients. J Hand Ther. 2001;14(2):154–169.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever