Background The new concepts of health assessment based on the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) require the increased use of patient self-rated outcome measurement. There is an extensive body of literature to support the concept that self-rating is far more valid than ‘objective’ parameters such as x-ray findings, range of motion etc. While the value of joint-specific assessment is obvious in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the need for comprehensive outcome parameters may seem to be less important. We present an exemplary study which compares generic, comprehensive assessment with condition-specific assessment.

Methods In a cross-sectional catamnesis study, the outcomes of patients with RA and posttraumatic (PT) elbows were compared 11 years after total elbow arthroplasty using generic and specific self-rating instruments.

Results Compared to the scores recorded for the 20 PT patients, the 59 RA patients achieved mean scores of 105.6% on the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Mental Component Summary, 82.5% on the Patient Related Elbow Evaluation (PREE) function, 69.5% on the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) function, and 60.2% on the SF-36 physical functioning (a higher score means better health).

Conclusions The elbow-specific PREE revealed little functional deficits for RA compared with PT, the arm-specific DASH showed moderate, and the generic, comprehensive SF-36 demonstrated large functional deficits, whereas psychosocial health was comparable for RA and PT. Post-interventional outcomes may be similar when focusing on a specific condition or joint. Functional deficits and holistic health can only be captured by comprehensive measurement when dealing with systemic polyarticular affection like RA.

Background Critical reflection in clinical routine and research raises the question of how we measure outcome. The classical etiopathogenetic way of thinking has led to biophysical, investigator-based, ‘objective’ parameters. However, new concepts of holistic health assessment based on the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) emphasize the patient’s (subjective) perception.

Methods We present different approaches to health and health-related quality of life assessment by applying assessment tools to specific examples and providing an overview of some of the existing instruments with an analysis of their properties.

Results Self-assessments reflect the patient’s needs more closely than biophysical parameters. Reliability and validity of the self-assessments are high and population surveys provide valid norms for comparisons. Generic instruments offer a comprehensive range of measurements, and condition-specific self-assessment tools differ in their pattern of health dimensions and their sensitivity to change (responsiveness) as expressed by specific scales. A specific set of instruments has to be compiled appropriate to the focus of interest.

Conclusions Self-assessments are an important complement to clinical signs as indicators of the patient’s condition and fulfill the requirements of the modern salutogenetic, holistic view of the patient as set out in the ICF concept. As a valid representation of the patient’s needs they help in the optimization of disease management and medical-economic planning.

Introduction: Patient self-assessment plays a significant rule in the monitoring of patients within clinical studies as well as a separate quality indicator. The self-assessment of function, disease activity and quality of life is known to have a predictive value in the disease progression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other orthopaedic diseases. However, all questionnaires challenge the clinical infrastructure. The questionnaire administration and their processing require still considerable manpower and is a potential source for errors. We analysed the in-house processes, identified the essential requirements and explored possible electronic solution with the aim to reduce necessary manpower and failure sources.

Materials and methods: In a first step we defined a set of questionnaires we want to administer on a regular base. We then evaluated candidate systems with respect to data handling and to further statistic processing. Two years later we re-evaluated the system and possible alternatives. We then paid special attention to scanning features and data export options. Finally we performed reliability and handling tests and a first clinical trial.

Results: The standardized set for shoulder patients comprises 144 items per patients. The set was designed as a four-color print for automatic processing with Qualicare. Four large studies with a total of more than 300 evaluations were performed using Qualicare. Our reevaluation of the system revealed major problems with the line scanner, the data processing in the system and the data export into statistics programs. After intensive search we installed a new scanning system based on an OMR reader that detects regions of interests on the questionnaire (Remark Office). This system allows simple form generation with the PC, the use of bar-code and faster processing. Reliability was more than 0.95 and handling revealed no major problems. Since first trials were successful the new system became the standard for all questionnaires in our department. Discussion: The high amount of variables in patient self-assessment requires automated processing to save manpower and to avoid failures during manual processing. During a three-year period we identified scanning and export options as the key factors for long-term success. The new system (Remark Office) accomplishes both requirements and might serve as the base for large studies or regular quality control.

Introduction: In the evaluation of the major joints, self assessment tools have become wide spread aiming at a more precise quantification of joint function. Different tools have been developed for the elbow joint. However, there are only few data on the relationship between subjective self-assessment of joint function and objective measures.

We developed a comprehensive assessment set for the evaluation of subjective elbow function and objective clinical findings and investigate long-term results after implantation of GSB III Elbow arthroplasties in a first study. The PREE-G was cross-culturally adapted, following the recommendations of the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Material and Methods: 79 patients (56 female, 23 male, mean age 64 years) after elbow arthroplasty between 1984 and 1996 due to rheumatoid (59) or posttraumatic (20) arthritis underwent an assessment of the joint function using the PREE, the Short Form 36 (SF-36), the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, Hand (DASH)) and the modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (mASES) for a clinical evaluation. In 62 patients implantation was performed unilaterally and in 17 patients bilaterally, resulting in 96 elbow joints altogether. The mean follow up time was 11,2 years

Results: In the SF-36 score, the mean physical component scale (PCS) was worse (37,2 vs 41,7, p=0,004), the mean mental component scale (MCS) better (52,3 vs 50,3, p=0,092) than normative values of a German population. Subjective assessment by the PREE revealed a mean of 66,8, by the mASES of 63,1 and by the DASH of 56,5 points. Clinical examination resulted in a mean mASES score of 71,6 points. Comparison between the patients self assessment and the objective score revealed a significant correlation between the DASH (r=0,46, p< 0,001), PREE (p=0,54, p< 0,001) and mASES (r=0,60, p< 0,001) with the clinical mASES. In contrast, no significant correlation was found between the physical component scale (PCS) and mental component scale (MCS) of SF-36 and the clinical mASES. Also the patients assessment scores DASH, PREE and mASES showed a strong significant correlation among one another (r=0,74–0,92, p< 0,001) and (PCS) (r=0,58–0,75, p< 0,001) but not with the (MCS) of SF-36.

Conclusion: Assessment of long term results after elbow arthroplasty yielded favourable clinical and subjective results. The clinical outcome tended to be higher than results of the patient self-rated scores. Hereby, the newly developed assessment set proved to be a feasible tool for a comprehensive assessment of elbow function. In addition to clinical outcome assessment, with this set it is possible to gain important and new insights on the relationship between objective measures and subjective patients-assessment of elbow disorders and postoperative conditions.