• 1
    Angst F, Stucki G, Aeschlimann A. Quality of life assessment in osteoarthritis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2003; 3: 62336.
  • 2
    Simmen BR, Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Herren DB, Pap G, Aeschlimann A, et al. A concept for comprehensively measuring health, function and quality of life after orthopaedic interventions of the upper extremity. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129: 1138.
  • 3
    Katz PP. Introduction to special issue: patient outcomes in rheumatology, 2011 [editorial]. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63 Suppl: S13.
  • 4
    World Health Organization (WHO). ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
  • 5
    Boers M, Brooks P, Strand VC, Tugwell P. The OMERACT filter for outcome measures in rheumatology [editorial]. J Rheumatol 1998; 25: 1989.
  • 6
    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Measuring change, responsiveness and sensitivity to change. In: Streiner DL, Norman GR, editors. Health measurement scales. 4th ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 2668, 277–88.
  • 7
    Portney LG, Watkins MP. Responsiveness to change. In: Portney LG, Watkins MP, editors. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall Health; 2000. p. 1035.
  • 8
    Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63 Suppl: S17488.
  • 9
    Angst F, John M, Pap G, Mannion AF, Herren DB, Flury M, et al. Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total elbow arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 53: 7382.
  • 10
    Angst F, Goldhahn J, Drerup S, Aeschlimann A, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. Responsiveness of six outcome assessment instruments in total shoulder arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59: 3918.
  • 11
    Ware JE Jr, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. 2nd ed. Lincoln (RI): QualityMetric; 2000.
  • 12
    Bullinger M, Kirchberger I. SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand: Handanweisung. Hogrefe: Göttingen; 1998.
  • 13
    Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Solway S, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH and QuickDASH outcome measure user's manual. 3rd ed. Toronto (ON): Institute for Work & Health; 2011. URL:
  • 14
  • 15
    King GJ, Richards RR, Zuckerman JD, Blasier R, Dillman C, Friedman RJ, et al, for the Research Committee, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. A standardized method for assessment of elbow function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999; 8: 3514.
  • 16
    John M, Angst F, Awiszus F, Pap G, MacDermid JC, Simmen BR. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons elbow questionnaire (ASES-e): cross-cultural adaptation into German and evaluation of its psychometric properties. J Hand Ther 2010; 23: 30113.
  • 17
    MacDermid JC. Outcome evaluation in patients with elbow pathology: issues in instrument development and evaluation. J Hand Ther 2001; 14: 10514.
  • 18
    John M, Angst F, Pap G, Junge A, Mannion AF. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Patient Related Elbow Evaluation (PREE) for German speaking patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007; 25: 195205.
  • 19
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27 Suppl: S17889.
  • 20
    Rosenthal R. Parametric measures of effect size. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. p. 23144.
  • 21
    Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, Keller RB, Lew RA, Fossel AH, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care 1998; 36: 491502.
  • 22
    Rosner B. Multiple comparisons: Bonferroni approach. In: Rosner B, editor. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 5th ed. Duxbury (CA): Thomson Learning; 2000. p. 52730.
  • 23
    Wyrwich KW, Wolinsky FD. Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. J Eval Clin Pract 2000; 6: 3949.
  • 24
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and the use of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143: 2936.
  • 25
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 40715.
  • 26
    De Boer YA, Hazes JM, Winia PC, Brand R, Rozing PM. Comparative responsiveness of four elbow scoring instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 261623.
  • 27
    Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, Fitzpatrick R, Little C, Rees J, et al. Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 125767.
  • 28
    Turchin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptor of elbow pain. J Bone Joint Surg 1998; 80A: 15462.
  • 29
    Angst F, Verra M, Lehmann S, Aeschlimann A. Responsiveness of five outcome assessment instruments in chronic pain. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 26.