Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 9/2018

Open Access 01-09-2018 | Review

Constant–Murley Score: systematic review and standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies

Authors: Kalliopi Vrotsou, Mónica Ávila, Mónica Machón, Maider Mateo-Abad, Yolanda Pardo, Olatz Garin, Carlos Zaror, Nerea González, Antonio Escobar, Ricardo Cuéllar

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 9/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Constant–Murley Score (CMS) in various shoulder pathologies, based on a systematic review and expert standardized evaluations.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and finally the included articles were grouped according to patients' pathologies. Two expert evaluators independently assessed the CMS properties of reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, interpretability and burden score in each group, using the EMPRO (Evaluating Measures of Patient Reported Outcomes) tool. The CMS properties were assessed per attribute and overall for each considered group. Only the concept and measurement model was assessed globally.

Results

Five individual pathologies (i.e. subacromial, fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder) and two additional groups (i.e. various pathologies and healthy subjects) were considered. Overall EMPRO scores ranged from 58.6 for subacromial to 30.6 points for instability. Responsiveness to change was the only quality to obtain at least 50 points across all groups, but for frozen shoulder. Insufficient information was obtained in relation to the concept and measurement model and great variability was seen in the other evaluated attributes.

Conclusions

The current evidence does not support the CMS as a gold standard in shoulder evaluation. Its use is advisable for subacromial pathology; but data are inconclusive for other shoulder conditions. Prospective studies exploring the psychometric properties of the scale, particularly for fractures, arthritis, instability and frozen shoulder are needed.

Level of evidence

Systematic review.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Constant, C. R., & Murley, A. H. (1987). A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, 214, 160–164.
2.
Barra-Lopez, M. E. (2007). El test de Constant-Murley. Una revision de sus caracteristicas. Rehabilitacion (Madr), 41, 228–235.CrossRef
3.
Kirkley, A., Griffin, S., & Dainty, K. (2003). Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy, 19, 1109–1120.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Angst, F., Schwyzer, H. K., Aeschlimann, A., Simmen, B. R., & Goldhahn, J. (2011). 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 & Research (Hoboken), 63(Suppl 11), S174-S188.
5.
Conboy, V. B., Morris, R. W., Kiss, J., & Carr, A. J. (1996). An evaluation of the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 78, 229–232.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Blonna, D., Scelsi, M., Marini, E., Bellato, E., Tellini, A., Rossi, R., et al. (2012). Can we improve the reliability of the Constant–Murley score? Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 21, 4–12.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Othman, A., & Taylor, G. (2004). Is the constant score reliable in assessing patients with frozen shoulder? 60 shoulders scored 3 years after manipulation under anaesthesia. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 75, 114–116.CrossRefPubMed
8.
van den Ende, C. H., Rozing, P. M., Dijkmans, B. A., Verhoef, J. A., Voogt-van der Harst, E. M., & Hazes, J. M. (1996). Assessment of shoulder function in rheumatoid arthritis. The Journal of Rheumatology, 23, 2043–2048.
9.
Walton, M. J., Walton, J. C., Honorez, L. A., Harding, V. F., & Wallace, W. A. (2007). A comparison of methods for shoulder strength assessment and analysis of Constant score change in patients aged over fifty years in the United Kingdom. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 16, 285–289.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Yian, E. H., Ramappa, A. J., Arneberg, O., & Gerber, C. (2005). The constant score in normal shoulders. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 14, 128–133.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Lillkrona, U. (2008). How should we use the constant score?—A commentary. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 17, 362–363.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Bankes, M. J., Crossman, J. E., & Emery, R. J. (1998). A standard method of shoulder strength measurement for the constant score with a spring balance. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 7, 116–121.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Constant, C. R., Gerber, C., Emery, R. J., Sojbjerg, J. O., Gohlke, F., & Boileau, P. (2008). A review of the Constant score: Modifications and guidelines for its use. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 17, 355–361.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Roy, J. S., Macdermid, J. C., & Woodhouse, L. J. (2010). A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Constant–Murley score. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 19, 157–164.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Slobogean, G. P., & Slobogean, B. L. (2011). Measuring shoulder injury function: Common scales and checklists. Injury, 42, 248–252.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Huang, H., Grant, J. A., Miller, B. S., Mirza, F. M., & Gagnier, J. J. (2015). A systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with rotator cuff disease. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 2572–2582.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Valderas, J. M., Ferrer, M., Mendivil, J., Garin, O., Rajmil, L., Herdman, M., et al. (2008). Development of EMPRO: A tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value Health, 11, 700–708.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Schmidt, S., Ferrer, M., Gonzalez, M., Gonzalez, N., Valderas, J. M., Alonso, J., et al. (2014). Evaluation of shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic and standardized comparison of available evidence. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 23, 434–444.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Schmidt, S., Garin, O., Pardo, Y., Valderas, J. M., Alonso, J., Rebollo, P., et al. (2014). Assessing quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: A systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2169–2181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Maratia, S., Cedillo, S., & Rejas, J. (2016). Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: A systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments using the EMPRO tool. Quality of Life Research, 25, 2467–2480.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Levy, O., Haddo, O., Massoud, S., Mullett, H., & Atoun, E. (2014). A patient-derived Constant–Murley score is comparable to a clinician-derived score. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 472, 294–303.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Baker, P., Nanda, R., Goodchild, L., Finn, P., & Rangan, A. (2008). A comparison of the Constant and Oxford shoulder scores in patients with conservatively treated proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 17, 37–41.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Christie, A., Hagen, K. B., Mowinckel, P., & Dagfinrud, H. (2009). Methodological properties of six shoulder disability measures in patients with rheumatic diseases referred for shoulder surgery. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 18, 89–95.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., & Carr, A. (1999). The assessment of shoulder instability: The development and validation of a questionnaire. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 81, 420–426.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Plancher, K. D., & Lipnick, S. L. (2009). Analysis of evidence-based medicine for shoulder instability. Arthroscopy, 25, 897–908.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Mc Dowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
29.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532.CrossRef
30.
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205.CrossRef
31.
Oh, J. H., Jo, K. H., Kim, W. S., Gong, H. S., Han, S. G., & Kim, Y. H. (2009). Comparative evaluation of the measurement properties of various shoulder outcome instruments. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 37, 1161–1168.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Mahabier, K. C., Den, H. D., Theyskens, N., Verhofstad, M. H. J., & Van Lieshout, E. M. M. (2017). Reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand and Constant–Murley scores in patients with a humeral shaft fracture. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 26, e1–e12.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307–310.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Altman, D. G. (1999). Practical statistics for medical research. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.
35.
Murphy, R. J., & Carr, A. J. (2010). Shoulder pain. BMJ Clinical Evidence, 2010, 1107.
36.
Mitchell, L. E., Ziviani, J., Oftedal, S., & Boyd, R. N. (2013). A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of measures of habitual physical activity in primary school aged children with cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 2419–2432.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Angst, F., Goldhahn, J., Drerup, S., Aeschlimann, A., Schwyzer, H. K., & Simmen, B. R. (2008). Responsiveness of six outcome assessment instruments in total shoulder arthroplasty. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 59, 391–398.CrossRef
38.
Rocourt, M. H., Radlinger, L., Kalberer, F., Sanavi, S., Schmid, N. S., Leunig, M., et al. (2008). Evaluation of intratester and intertester reliability of the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 17, 364–369.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Constant–Murley Score: systematic review and standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies
Authors
Kalliopi Vrotsou
Mónica Ávila
Mónica Machón
Maider Mateo-Abad
Yolanda Pardo
Olatz Garin
Carlos Zaror
Nerea González
Antonio Escobar
Ricardo Cuéllar
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1875-7

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

Quality of Life Research 9/2018 Go to the issue

Brief Communication

The impact of axial spondyloarthritis on quality of life (QoL): a comparison with the impact of moderate to end-stage chronic kidney disease on QoL

OriginalPaper

Combining online and in-person methods to evaluate the content validity of PROMIS fatigue short forms in rheumatoid arthritis

OriginalPaper

Diabetes symptoms predictors of health-related quality of life in adolescents and young adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

OriginalPaper

Validity of the PROMIS depression and anxiety common metrics in an online sample of Australian adults

OriginalPaper

Cross-national health comparisons using the Rasch model: findings from the 2012 US Health and Retirement Study and the 2012 Mexican Health and Aging Study

OriginalPaper

Grooming a CAT: customizing CAT administration rules to increase response efficiency in specific research and clinical settings