↓ Skip to main content

Clinician and Patient-reported Outcomes Are Associated With Psychological Factors in Patients With Chronic Shoulder Pain

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
Title
Clinician and Patient-reported Outcomes Are Associated With Psychological Factors in Patients With Chronic Shoulder Pain
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4894-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian Wolfensberger, Philippe Vuistiner, Michel Konzelmann, Chantal Plomb-Holmes, Bertrand Léger, François Luthi

Abstract

Validated clinician outcome scores are considered less associated with psychosocial factors than patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs). This belief may lead to misconceptions if both instruments are related to similar factors. We asked: In patients with chronic shoulder pain, what biopsychosocial factors are associated (1) with PROMs, and (2) with clinician-rated outcome measurements? All new patients between the ages of 18 and 65 with chronic shoulder pain from a unilateral shoulder injury admitted to a Swiss rehabilitation teaching hospital between May 2012 and January 2015 were screened for potential contributing biopsychosocial factors. During the study period, 314 patients were screened, and after applying prespecified criteria, 158 patients were evaluated. The median symptom duration was 9 months (interquartile range, 5.5-15 months), and 72% of the patients (114 patients) had rotator cuff tears, most of which were work injuries (59%, 93 patients) and were followed for a mean of 31.6 days (SD, 7.5 days). Exclusion criteria were concomitant injuries in another location, major or minor upper limb neuropathy, and inability to understand the validated available versions of PROMs. The PROMs were the DASH, the Brief Pain Inventory, and the Patient Global Impression of Change, before and after treatment (physiotherapy, cognitive therapy and vocational training). The Constant-Murley score was used as a clinician-rated outcome measurement. Statistical models were used to estimate associations between biopsychosocial factors and outcomes. Greater disability on the DASH was associated with psychological factors (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale combined coefficient, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.25-1.03; p = 0.002) and social factors (language, professional qualification combined coefficient, -6.15; 95% CI, -11.09 to -1.22; p = 0.015). Greater pain on the Brief Pain Inventory was associated with psychological factors (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale combined coefficient, 0.076; 95% CI, 0.021-0.13; p = 0.006). Poorer impression of change was associated with psychological factors (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia coefficient, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; p = 0.026) and social factors (education, language, and professional qualification coefficient, 6.67; 95% CI, 2.77-16.10; p < 0.001). Worse clinician-rated outcome was associated only with psychological factors (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (depression only), Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia combined coefficient, -0.35; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.12; p = 0.003). Depressive symptoms and catastrophizing appear to be key factors influencing PROMs and clinician-rated outcomes. This study suggests revisiting the Constant-Murley score. Level III, prognostic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 284 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 16%
Student > Bachelor 30 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Researcher 22 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 62 22%
Unknown 80 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 19%
Psychology 24 8%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Neuroscience 7 2%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 96 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#4,572,992
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#975
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,801
of 367,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#23
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.