Comparison of the responsiveness of the Brazilian version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) with DASH, UCLA and SF-36 in patients with rotator cuff disorders
Data
2009-09-01
Autores
Lopes, Andréa Diniz 
Ciconelli, Rozana Mesquita
Carrera, Eduardo Frota
Faloppa, Flávio
Mostrar mais
Tipo
Artigo
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Resumo
ObjectiveTo investigate the responsiveness of the Brazilian version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) and compare it with the Disabilities of At-tit, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), the University of California Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale (UCLA), and the Short-Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) in patients with rotator cliff disorders.MethodsThe four questionnaires were administered to 30 patients tit baseline and 3 months after treatment (physiotherapy or surgery). The patients were divided into two groups: those who improved after treatment (n=20) and those who did not (n=10) based oil an anchor-based strategy to distinguish between the two groups and assess responsiveness. The t-test, the t-value of the paired t-test, the effect size (ES), and the standardized response mean (SRM) were calculated.ResultsAll four questionnaires registered statistically significant changes (p<0.05) in the improved group between baseline and 3 months after treatment, and no changes in patients who did not improve. All four instruments showed higher ES and SRM values for the patients who improved than those who did not. WORC registered moderate to high ES and SRM values for the improved group, (is did the UCLA and DASH. The ES and SRM values Measured by the SF-36 ranged from small to large, the physical subscales being more responsive than the other subscales.ConclusionThe Brazilian version of the WORC (like UCLA, DASH and SF-36 physical subscales) proved responsive to change and suitable for use in the short-term follow-up of patients after rotator cuff interventions.
Descrição
Citação
Clinical And Experimental Rheumatology. Pisa: Clinical & Exper Rheumatology, v. 27, n. 5, p. 758-764, 2009.