Accuracy and reliability of the mayo elbow performance score

Michael C. Cusick, Nicolas S. Bonnaig, Frederick M. Azar, Benjamin M. Mauck, Richard Smith, Thomas W. Throckmorton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

53 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose To test the reliability of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and compare it with a validated outcomes instrument, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. Methods A total of 42 patients with the chief problem of elbow dysfunction formed the study cohort. Patients with an immediate surgical indication or treatment at the index visit were excluded. The others completed an MEPS questionnaire; at a second visit 2 to 3 weeks later, they completed another MEPS questionnaire and were evaluated with the ASES elbow assessment. Reliability and accuracy were calculated using 2-tailed Pearson correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals. Pearson coefficients greater than 0.8 indicated strong agreement. Results The average MEPS score at the initial visit was 58. At the second visit, the average MEPS score was 69 and the average ASES score was 78. The Pearson coefficient for MEPS scores at the 2 time points averaged 0.82, and between the MEPS and ASES scores averaged 0.83. Both coefficients indicated strong agreement. Conclusions The MEPS has strong reliability when assessed at different times and when compared with a validated elbow outcomes instrument. Differences in compared scores of approximately 10 points indicate some patient improvement between time points; however, 95% confidence intervals, standard deviations, and ranges were essentially equivalent between and among tests, indicating similar accuracy. Clinical relevance The MEPS is a reliable outcomes instrument for clinical studies of elbow function that is used to assess nonsurgical treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1146-1150
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Hand Surgery
Volume39
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Elbow
Confidence Intervals

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Cusick, M. C., Bonnaig, N. S., Azar, F. M., Mauck, B. M., Smith, R., & Throckmorton, T. W. (2014). Accuracy and reliability of the mayo elbow performance score. Journal of Hand Surgery, 39(6), 1146-1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.01.041

Accuracy and reliability of the mayo elbow performance score. / Cusick, Michael C.; Bonnaig, Nicolas S.; Azar, Frederick M.; Mauck, Benjamin M.; Smith, Richard; Throckmorton, Thomas W.

In: Journal of Hand Surgery, Vol. 39, No. 6, 01.01.2014, p. 1146-1150.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cusick, MC, Bonnaig, NS, Azar, FM, Mauck, BM, Smith, R & Throckmorton, TW 2014, 'Accuracy and reliability of the mayo elbow performance score', Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1146-1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.01.041
Cusick MC, Bonnaig NS, Azar FM, Mauck BM, Smith R, Throckmorton TW. Accuracy and reliability of the mayo elbow performance score. Journal of Hand Surgery. 2014 Jan 1;39(6):1146-1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.01.041
Cusick, Michael C. ; Bonnaig, Nicolas S. ; Azar, Frederick M. ; Mauck, Benjamin M. ; Smith, Richard ; Throckmorton, Thomas W. / Accuracy and reliability of the mayo elbow performance score. In: Journal of Hand Surgery. 2014 ; Vol. 39, No. 6. pp. 1146-1150.
@article{ca580036cc994b37834da7378adfd5b1,
title = "Accuracy and reliability of the mayo elbow performance score",
abstract = "Purpose To test the reliability of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and compare it with a validated outcomes instrument, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. Methods A total of 42 patients with the chief problem of elbow dysfunction formed the study cohort. Patients with an immediate surgical indication or treatment at the index visit were excluded. The others completed an MEPS questionnaire; at a second visit 2 to 3 weeks later, they completed another MEPS questionnaire and were evaluated with the ASES elbow assessment. Reliability and accuracy were calculated using 2-tailed Pearson correlation coefficients with 95{\%} confidence intervals. Pearson coefficients greater than 0.8 indicated strong agreement. Results The average MEPS score at the initial visit was 58. At the second visit, the average MEPS score was 69 and the average ASES score was 78. The Pearson coefficient for MEPS scores at the 2 time points averaged 0.82, and between the MEPS and ASES scores averaged 0.83. Both coefficients indicated strong agreement. Conclusions The MEPS has strong reliability when assessed at different times and when compared with a validated elbow outcomes instrument. Differences in compared scores of approximately 10 points indicate some patient improvement between time points; however, 95{\%} confidence intervals, standard deviations, and ranges were essentially equivalent between and among tests, indicating similar accuracy. Clinical relevance The MEPS is a reliable outcomes instrument for clinical studies of elbow function that is used to assess nonsurgical treatment.",
author = "Cusick, {Michael C.} and Bonnaig, {Nicolas S.} and Azar, {Frederick M.} and Mauck, {Benjamin M.} and Richard Smith and Throckmorton, {Thomas W.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.01.041",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "1146--1150",
journal = "Journal of Hand Surgery",
issn = "0363-5023",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy and reliability of the mayo elbow performance score

AU - Cusick, Michael C.

AU - Bonnaig, Nicolas S.

AU - Azar, Frederick M.

AU - Mauck, Benjamin M.

AU - Smith, Richard

AU - Throckmorton, Thomas W.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Purpose To test the reliability of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and compare it with a validated outcomes instrument, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. Methods A total of 42 patients with the chief problem of elbow dysfunction formed the study cohort. Patients with an immediate surgical indication or treatment at the index visit were excluded. The others completed an MEPS questionnaire; at a second visit 2 to 3 weeks later, they completed another MEPS questionnaire and were evaluated with the ASES elbow assessment. Reliability and accuracy were calculated using 2-tailed Pearson correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals. Pearson coefficients greater than 0.8 indicated strong agreement. Results The average MEPS score at the initial visit was 58. At the second visit, the average MEPS score was 69 and the average ASES score was 78. The Pearson coefficient for MEPS scores at the 2 time points averaged 0.82, and between the MEPS and ASES scores averaged 0.83. Both coefficients indicated strong agreement. Conclusions The MEPS has strong reliability when assessed at different times and when compared with a validated elbow outcomes instrument. Differences in compared scores of approximately 10 points indicate some patient improvement between time points; however, 95% confidence intervals, standard deviations, and ranges were essentially equivalent between and among tests, indicating similar accuracy. Clinical relevance The MEPS is a reliable outcomes instrument for clinical studies of elbow function that is used to assess nonsurgical treatment.

AB - Purpose To test the reliability of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and compare it with a validated outcomes instrument, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. Methods A total of 42 patients with the chief problem of elbow dysfunction formed the study cohort. Patients with an immediate surgical indication or treatment at the index visit were excluded. The others completed an MEPS questionnaire; at a second visit 2 to 3 weeks later, they completed another MEPS questionnaire and were evaluated with the ASES elbow assessment. Reliability and accuracy were calculated using 2-tailed Pearson correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals. Pearson coefficients greater than 0.8 indicated strong agreement. Results The average MEPS score at the initial visit was 58. At the second visit, the average MEPS score was 69 and the average ASES score was 78. The Pearson coefficient for MEPS scores at the 2 time points averaged 0.82, and between the MEPS and ASES scores averaged 0.83. Both coefficients indicated strong agreement. Conclusions The MEPS has strong reliability when assessed at different times and when compared with a validated elbow outcomes instrument. Differences in compared scores of approximately 10 points indicate some patient improvement between time points; however, 95% confidence intervals, standard deviations, and ranges were essentially equivalent between and among tests, indicating similar accuracy. Clinical relevance The MEPS is a reliable outcomes instrument for clinical studies of elbow function that is used to assess nonsurgical treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84901604255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84901604255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.01.041

DO - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.01.041

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 1146

EP - 1150

JO - Journal of Hand Surgery

JF - Journal of Hand Surgery

SN - 0363-5023

IS - 6

ER -