English Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) User Manual
Contents
1. 54 patients age Swedish PRTEE 2008 6 46 25F 29M with unilateral Occasion 1 Occasion 2 epicondylitis T R Pain ICC 0 58 Pain ICC 0 60 epicondylalgia reliability Function ICC Function ICC 30 minutes 0 91 0 90 Total ICC 0 90 Total ICC 0 90 SEM Pain 0 25 Pain 0 60 Function 0 32 Function 0 31 Total 0 27 Total 0 27 Internal Pain a 0 84 Pain a 0 83 Consistency Functiona 0 93 Function a 0 92 Total a 0 94 Total a 0 94 Altan et al 50 patients age Turkish PRTEE 2010 7 47 52 34 60 14M 36F with T reliability Pain r 0 922 lateral epicondylitis 2 hours Function SA r 0 906 Function UA r 0 907 Overall r 0 920 Internal Pain a 0 733 Consistency Function SA a 0 712 Function UA a 0 755 Total a 0 837 Blanchette et 32 patients age Internal Pain a 0 80 al 2010 8 45 12 14M 18F Consistency Function a 0 92 with lateral Total a 0 93 epicondylitis Item total correlation r 0 58 0 85 Legend ICC intraclass correlation coefficient SEM standard error of measurement T R reliability test retest reliability r coefficient of determination a Cronbach s alpha Abbreviations F female M male PRFEQ Patient Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire PRTEE Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Function SA Functions Special Activities subscale Function UA Function Usual Activities Page 10 T2. 34 6 17 6 43 4 28 5 Total 53 3 Total 66 7 23 4 41 3 Page 18 Study Population Follow up Time PRTEE Results Comparators Mean SD Total symptoms Pain 18 8 Pain 20 9 30 6 11 1 30 4 12 2 7 0 12 3 Function Function 37 8 17 7 37 4 23 5 Total 56 6 Total 58 3 24 0 35 1 Martinez 94 patients 50M PRFEQ DASH VAS Pain Free Grip Silvestrini et al age 45 5 with Baseline Stretching Total 3 7 1 7 Stretching 27 14 Stretching 48 21 Stretching 23 15 2005 10 chronic lateral Concentric Total 3 8 1 7 Concentric 26 13 Concentric 49 21 Concentric 17 9 7 epicondylitis treated Eccentric Total 3 3 1 5 Eccentric 25 13 Eccentric 46 20 Eccentric 22 12 with one of stretching concentric Six weeks Stretching Total 1 5 1 6 Stretching 15 14 Stretching 25 24 Stretching 30 17 strengthening with Concentric Total 1 3 1 8 Concentric 17 14 Concentric 35 25 Concentric 25 12 stretching eccentric Eccentric Total 1 2 1 7 Eccentric 16 15 Eccentric 24 24 Eccentric 26 14 strengthening with stretching Faes et al 2006 63 patients with PRFEQ VAS 11 lateral epicondylitis Baseline Brace 5 2 1 9 Brace 4 3 2 1 received extensor Control 4 6 1 7 Control 4 3 1 8 brace n 30 age 46 63 F or no brace treatment n 33 age 48 48 F Alizadehkhatyat et 16 patients age 49 PRFEQ DASH P
3. 7 Total 3 3 1 7 Leung et al 2004 74 patients age 28 Hong Kong Chinese PRFEQ None 2 69 with lateral epicondylitis Pain 27 96 9 39 Function 47 50 23 49 Total 75 46 32 10 Van der Streek et al 2004 9 43 patients with lateral epicondylitis PRFEQ Maximal grip strength kg Page 17 Study Population Follow up Time PRTEE Results Comparators Mean SD randomized to wear Group I Group I Group I Group II i elbow band n 20 Baseline age 43 50 9 39 Acute symptoms Pain 25 5 Pain 25 2 37 4 13 7 26 3 11 8 70 F ii group I n 11 7 5 8 0 forearm hand splint group n 11 Function Function n 23 age 42 30 56 3 21 6 47 5 18 5 9 88 70 F Total 81 8 Total 72 7 28 0 24 0 Chronic Pain 28 2 Pain 28 0 31 6 10 3 26 7 5 2 symptoms 5 5 8 1 group I n 8 Function Function group II n 10 55 1 12 6 54 7 21 4 Total 83 4 Total 82 7 12 9 28 9 Total symptoms Pain 26 7 Pain 26 6 29 2 12 2 26 5 9 0 group I n 19 6 7 8 0 group II n 21 Function Function 55 8 17 7 50 9 19 7 Total 82 5 Total 77 5 22 0 26 3 6 weeks Acute symptoms Pain 19 0 Pain 18 7 27 9 12 3 31 3 16 0 7 7 11 4 Function Function 40 4 18 3 31 9 18 1 Total 59 3 Total 50 6 25 4 28 0 Chronic Pain 18 6 Pain 233 34 4 8 6 29 4 6 4 symptoms 6 7 13 4 Function Function
4. epicondylitis The pain subscale consisted of 4 out of 5 items from the PRWE with the term arm replacing wrist The usual activities items in the PRTEE s function subscale were identical to the PRWE s usual activities whereas the PRTEE s specific activities were comprised of activities that may be affected by tennis elbow To keep the instrument brief and easy to use in a clinic the questionnaire format was limited to five pain questions and ten function questions A total score out of 100 can be computed by equally weighting the pain score sum of five items and the disability score sum of ten items divided by 2 Testing the PRTEE To test the PRTEE s test retest reliability 47 patients with unilateral lateral epicondylitis completed the PRTEE on two consecutive days The pain ICC 0 89 function 1CC 0 83 and the total ICC 0 89 scores all demonstrated excellent reliability When the reliability was assessed by subgroups men vs women chronic vs acute work related vs non work related the ICCs were all greater than 0 75 Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating the PRTEE scores with the pain free grip strength The total PRTEE score r 0 36 and the pain subscale r 0 37 had a significant moderate correlation with the pain free grip strength but not the function subscale r 0 30 Reference Overend et al 1999 1 Recent Revisions Since calling the instrument th
5. job or everyday work 01 2 3 5 6789 10 Function score 1 3 0 5 0 4 3 4 1 5 4 4 6 2 14 50 1 Personal activities dressing washing 4 Recreational or sporting activities Total score 31 14 45 100 Interpretation gt The total PRTEE score rates pain and disability equally gt Higher score indicates more pain and functional disability e g 0 no disability Page 6 Common Questions 1 How are missing data treated If there is an item missing you can replace the item with the mean score of the subscale 2 What if patients leave the question blank because they cannot do it Make sure the patients understand that they should have answered 10 for the item and make corrections if necessary 3 What if patients rarely perform the task If patients are unsure about how to answer a task that is rarely performed encourage them to estimate their average difficulty Their estimate will be more accurate than leaving the question blank 4 What if patients do not do the task If patients never do the task they should leave the question blank Page 7 Instrument Properties and Outcome Studies Reliability Test Retest Reliability the stability of the instrument over time Standard Error of Measurement the confidence around the value of the score Validity Construct Validity the extent to which the instrument corresponds to theoretical constructs Criterion Concurrent Val
6. rest When doing a task with repeated arm movement When carrying a plastic bag of groceries When your pain was at its least When your pain was at its worst Pain score 2 8 7 5 9 31 50 Page 5 A SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES Rate the amount of difficulty you experienced performing each of the tasks listed below over the past week by circling the number that best describes your difficulty on a scale of 0 10 A zero 0 means you did not experience any difficulty and a ten 10 means it was so difficult you were unable to do it at all No Unable to Do Turn a doorknob or key O 1 23 456789 W 012G 456789 10 Lift a full coffee cup or glass of milk to your 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 mouth Open a jar CL Vea ADST BF We Pull up pants 1234567809 10 012G 456789 10 Carry a grocery bag or briefcase by the handle Wring out a washcloth or wet towel B USUAL ACTIVITIES Rate the amount of difficulty you experienced performing your usual activities in each of the areas listed below over the past week by circling the number that best describes your difficulty on a scale of 0 10 By usual activities we mean the activities that you performed before you started having a problem with your arm A zero 0 means you did not experience any difficulty and a ten 10 means it was so difficult you were unable to do any of your usual activities 2 Household work cleaning maintenance 3 Work your
7. 1 5 0 5 95 CI 0 9 0 1 ES 0 8 95 CI 0 4 1 2 1 0 95 CI 0 6 1 4 0 2 95 CI 0 3 0 0 3 months SRM 1 0 95 CI 0 6 1 4 1 0 95 CI 0 5 1 3 ES 1 0 95 CI 0 6 1 4 1 0 95 CI 0 6 1 5 Longitudinal Construct Validity Baseline to 6 weeks r with VAS 0 68 r with PFG 0 26 Baseline to 3 months R with VAS 0 88 Legend ES effect size SRM standardized response mean statistically significant p lt 0 05 95 CI 95 confidence intervals Abbreviations DASH Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder Hand F female M male PFG Pain Free Grip PRFEQ Patient Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire PRTEE Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation SF 36 BP SF 36 Bodily Pain VAS Visual Analogue Scale Page 16 Table 4 Comparative Scores for the PRTEE Study Population Follow up Time PRTEE Results Comparators Mean SD Overend et al 47 patients Day 1 None 1999 1 age 45 0 24M Total n 47 Pain 4 1 1 8 23F Function 3 4 2 1 Total 3 8 1 8 Males n 24 Pain 3 5 1 4 Function 2 8 1 9 Total 3 1 1 6 Females Pain 4 7 1 9 Function 4 1 2 1 Total 4 4 1 9 Acute n 35 Pain 4 2 1 6 Function 3 6 2 0 Total 3 9 1 7 Chronic n 12 Pain 3 6 2 1 Function 3 1 2 2 Total 3 3 2 0 Work related Pain 4 5 1 6 n 21 Function 4 2 2 3 Total 4 4 1 8 Non work Pain 3 7 1 9 related n 26 Function 2 8 1
8. 36 Function r 0 405 Function r 0 532 Physical r 0 412 Total r 0 401 Social demands Pain r 0 326 r 0 195 Pain 0 431 Mental r 0 760 Function r 0 436 Function 0 448 Physical r 0 599 Total r 0 410 Physical Pain r 0 560 r 0 436 Pain r 0 484 Mental r 0 741 demands Function r 0 612 Function r 0 696 Physical r 0 706 Total r 0 589 Radpasand et al 5 patients with Group A Group B VAS Pain free grip strength 2009 15 chronic lateral Baseline Pain 19 0 Pain 17 0 Group A Group B Group A Group B epicondylitis 8 5 2 9 Least pain 9 0 Least pain 56 2 a 8 0 16 0 16 0 randomized to of 2 Function SA Function SA 4 3 23 0 9 9 multimodal therapy 22 5 17 7 12 0 4 2 Worst pain Worst pain groups i Group A Function UA Function UA 34 0 25 5 56 0 5 7 n 3 age 38 0 11 0 5 7 11 0 1 4 9 0 3M ii Group Total 35 8 Total 28 5 Page 21 Study Population Follow up Time PRTEE Results Comparators Mean SD B n 2 age 44 5 20 1 1 4 7 0 1M 1F Post treatment Pain 8 0 Pain 7 5 Least pan 7 5 Least pain 58 0 34 4 19 5 22 0 12 weeks 2 9 5 0 5 0 10 5 19 7 Function SA Function SA Worst pain Worst pain 6 5 2 1 6 5 0 8 21 5 16 3 19 5 22 0 Function UA Function UA 7 0 2 8 6 5 0 7 Total 14 8 Total 14 2 5 3 28 1 Clarke et al 2010 16 62 patient
9. 5 4 25 of collagen Post treatment producing cells into 6 weeks 47 IQR 17 5 80 sites of intrasubstance tears 3 months 35 IQR 0 42 and fibrillar discontinuity 6 months 12 IQR 9 25 4 2 ICR 4 3 IQR 2 75 1 IQR 0 2 IQR 0 5 4 4 4 5 1 25 Grewal et al 2009 36 patients age 42 months 19 MEPI ASES e SF 12 14 45 3 7 29 61 20M 74 months 16F with chronic Worker s 36 7 71 8 Pain 21 0 Mental 47 7 lateral epicondylitis Compensation Function 24 1 Physical 41 4 treated with claim n 23 Satisfaction 7 0 arthroscopic release No worker s 7 6 90 0 Pain 6 8 Mental 54 3 compensation Function 34 3 Physical 51 3 claim n 13 Satisfaction 9 8 Page 20 Study Population Follow up Time PRTEE Results Comparators Mean SD Heavy repetitive 31 2 75 1 Pain 18 6 Mental 48 6 work n 25 Function 25 9 Physical 42 2 Satisfaction 7 7 No heavy 13 1 85 7 Pain 8 1 Mental 55 1 repetitive work Function 33 0 Physical 54 0 n 11 Satisfaction 9 9 r with WLQ Scheduling Pain r 0 530 r 0 375 Pain r 0 320 Mental r 0 724 demands Function r 0 560 Function r 0 516 Physical r 0 530 Total r 0 530 Mental demands Pain r 0 558 r 0 412 Pain r 0 598 Mental r 0 914 Function r 0 646 Function r 0 607 Physical r 0 660 Total r 0 638 Output demands Pain r 0 390 r 0 324 Pain r 0 287 Mental r 0 4
10. RWEQ al 2007 5 40 66 50 F with Patient Control Patient Control Patient Control lateral epicondylitis Pain 31 8 Pain 1 2 Symptom 54 Symptom 2 Pain 30 16 Pain 4 16 healthy controls Function 29 Function 0 20 4 Function 26 Function 0 1 age 40 26 59 11 1 Work 46 22 Work 2 7 15 44 F Total 60 Total 1 3 Total 56 31 Total 2 4 19 Radpasand 2007 Patient age 57 F Baseline Pain 28 12 with lateral epicondylitis who underwent 10 week sequential multimodal treatment End of treatment Function SA 48 Function UA 32 Total 68 Pain 2 Function SA 0 Function UA 1 Page 19 Study Population Follow up Time PRTEE Results Comparators Mean SD Total 2 Pain 4 3 weeks Function SA 1 Function UA 1 Total 5 Nilsson et al 54 patients age 46 Swedish PRTEE 2008 6 25F 29M with unilateral Occasion 1 Pain 4 18 1 81 epicondylitis Function 3 90 2 38 epicondylalgia Total 4 04 2 00 Occasion 2 after 30 minutes Pain 3 77 1 80 Function 3 70 2 29 Total 3 74 1 97 Connell et al 12 patients age Ultrasonography Assessment 2009 13 39 1 29 48 5M Thickness Hypoechogenicity Neovascularity Tears mm 7F with refractory mm hypervascularity lateral epicondylitis Pre treatment 78 IQR 71 88 4 35 IQR 4 7 WR 6 8 3 IQR 2 75 5 IQR 3 6 treated with injection 4
11. The Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation PRTEE User Manual June 2010 Joy C MacDermid BScPT MSc PhD School of Rehabilitation Science McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada Clinical Research Lab Hand and Upper Limb Centre St Joseph s Health Centre London Ontario Canada E mail macderj mcmaster ca or jnacderm uwo ca Table of Contents Introduction Whatis the PRS Bs sesi a cosiua sd soccaysenusa csasausecayonssanic secauvecoups sosam Sen ees nie beeen dee oad p 3 Instrument Development Designing the PRTEE iy vsinuieas t venues aa roids ara EEE AAT a cae p 4 Testne the PIC DBE omenon dace prone E REE cna mandessanciianmeeameeeed p 4 Recent REVISIONS 1s ncqanainnennaderdesaune Dekmumanamoewed LATENTE ETOR ETAR p 4 How to Score the PRTEE Computing the subscales sissies aoirean heen estan booms dese Utena p 5 Computing the total score 4 sia ii edsseae dieses aeaeieriels vaeeuiees Cored ae Deo Sample Scoring ona esines eE EE EE onan Cuoasamunneutebeda e AANER p 5 Interpretation ienne a E AG EE E E Glue T Ea elvan Ho E ATE p 6 Common QUESTIONS saana T EEE a E E A T a N E RE NNE p 7 Instrument Properties and Outcome Studies Table t Reliability uonane s a e n a a a a a DO Table 2 Validityssa n o aE EEE E ead andes ah A ENEE nvess p 10 Table 3 RESPONSIVENESS ndtsci vac seach es sap endecs akan cen esseuvseusean deh eeestns p 12 Table 4 Comparative Data sta piece cecil wend side wenebeuaee enw wadsva
12. able 2 Validity of the PRTEE in Published Studies Study Population Type PRTEE Results Comparators Overend et al 47 patients Criterion None 1999 1 age 45 0 24M 23F r with pain Pain r 0 36 free grip Function r 0 30 Total r 0 30 Leung et al 2004 74 patients age 28 Construct Hong Kong Chinese PRFEQ None 2 69 with lateral epicondylitis r with flexed Pain r 0 39 elbow Function r 0 38 Total r 0 40 r with Pain r 0 38 extended Function r 0 38 elbow Total r 0 40 Newcomer et al 94 patients age Concurrent PRFEQ None 2005 3 45 5 53 2 F with lateral epicondylitis r with VAS Pain r 0 62 Function r 0 64 Total r 0 66 r with PFG Pain r 0 35 Function r 0 45 Total r 0 45 r with DASH Pain r 0 56 r with SF 36 SF r with SF 36 RP Function r 0 74 Total r 0 72 Pain r 0 33 Function r 0 32 Total r 0 31 Pain r 0 32 Function r 0 37 Total r 0 38 Page 11 rs with SF 36 BP rs with SF 36 PF Pain r 0 60 Function r 0 62 Total r 0 65 Pain r 0 59 Function r 0 57 Total r 0 61 Alizadehkhaiyat et 16 patients age 49 Concurrent PRFEQ DASH al 2007 5 40 66 50 F with lateral epicondylitis r with DASH r 0 86 16 healthy controls age 40 26 59 rwith PRWE r 0 89 r 0 73 44 F Rompe et al 2007 78 patient
13. e Patient Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire was misleading the title was recently changed to the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation to indicate that the measure was specifically designed for tennis elbow Minor modifications were also made on the wording of some of the items 1 turning a doorknob is now turn a doorknob and key 2 carry a plastic bag of groceries is now carry a grocery bag or briefcase by the handle 3 wringing out a facecloth or dishrag is now wring out a washcloth or wet towel Page 4 How to Score the PRTEE To minimize nonresponse check forms once patients complete them Computing the Subscales Pain Score Sum of the 5 pain items out of 50 Best Score 0 Worst Score 50 Function Score Sum of the 10 function items Divided by 2 out of 50 Best Score 0 Worst Score 50 Computing the Total Score Total Score Sum of pain function scores Best Score 0 Worst Score 100 Note responses to the fifteen items are totaled out of 100 where pain and disability are equally weighted Sample Scoring PAIN IN YOUR AFFECTED ARM Rate the average amount of pain in your arm over the past week by circling the number that best describes your pain on a scale from 0 tol0 A zero 0 means that you did not have any pain and a ten 10 means that you had the worst pain imaginable RATE YOUR PAIN Worst No Pain Imaginable When you are at
14. ent rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Questionnaire J Hand Ther 2007 20 1 3 10 5 Alizadehkhaiyat O Fisher AC Kemp GJ Frostock SP Pain functional disability and psychologic status in tennis elbow Clin J Pain 2007 23 6 482 489 6 Nilsson P Baigi A Marklund B Mansson J Cross cultural adaptation and determination of the reliability and validity of PRTEE S Patientskattad Utvardering av Tennisarmbage a questionnaire for patients with lateral epicodylalgia in a Swedish population BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2008 9 79 7 Altan L Ercan I Konur S Reliability and validity of Turkish version of the patient rated tennis elbow evaluation Rheumatol Int 2010 30 8 1049 1054 8 Blanchette MA Normand MC Cross cultural adaptation of the Patient rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation to Canadian French J Hand Ther 2010 Apr 18 Epub ahead of print 9 van der Streek MD van der Schans CP de Greef MHG Postema K The effect of a forearm hand splint compared with an elbow band as a treatment for lateral epicondylitis Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2004 28 183 189 10 Martinez Silvestrini JA Newcomer KL Gay RE Schaefer MP Kortebein P Arendt KW Comparative effectiveness of a home exercise program including stretching alone versus stretching supplemented with eccentric or concentric strengthening J Hand Ther 2005 18 411 420 11 Faes M van den Akker B de Lint J et al Dynamic extensor brace for lateral epicondyl
15. et al 94 patients age 6 weeks PRFEQ PFG VAS DASH SF 36 BP 2005 3 45 5 53 2 F with SRM Pain 1 2 0 8 1 0 0 9 0 7 lateral epicondylitis Function 0 8 Total 1 0 ES Pain 1 3 0 6 1 1 0 9 0 8 Function 0 8 Total 1 0 12 weeks SRM Pain 1 8 1 3 1 5 Function 1 6 Total 1 9 ES Pain 1 8 1 4 1 3 Function 1 4 Total 1 6 Rompe et al 2007 78 patients with 3 months treatment group n 38 Thomsen UEFS Rolesand DASH 4 chronic unilateral Test Maudsley MRI confirmed SRM Pain 2 01 1 73 1 58 1 52 1 60 lateral elbow Function 2 01 tendinopathy that were randomized to ES Pain 33 67 16 67 3 50 2 02 23 37 1 39 0 92 32 15 i treatment n 38 Function 50 00 24 88 14 83 20 05 age 45 23 69 47 F i1 placebo Posttreatment n 40 age 45 18 pretreatment 68 50 F changes r with Thomsen test Pain r 0 73 Function SA r 0 84 Function UA r 0 25 Total 0 847 r with UEFS Pain r 0 36 Function SA r 0 25 Page 15 r with Roles and Function UA r 0 15 Total r 0 33 Pain r 0 39 Maudsley Function SA r 0 23 Function UA r 0 09 Total 0 31 r with DASH Pain r 0 80 Function SA 1 0 92 Function UA r 0 52 Total r 0 66 Blanchette et al 32 patients age 45 Canadian French PRTEE VAS PFG 2010 8 12 14M 18F with 6 weeks lateral epicondylitis SRM 0 9 95 CI 0 5 1 3 1 0 95 CI 0 6
16. idity the extent to which the instrument relates with a gold standard or more established measure Responsiveness Responsiveness The ability of the instrument to detect change Page 8 Table 1 Reliability of the PRTEE in published studies Study Population Type PRTEE Results Comparators Overend et 47 patients T R Pain ICC 0 89 None al 1999 1 age 45 0 24M reliability Function ICC 0 83 23F Total ICC 0 89 Subgroup analyses ICC gt 0 75 SEM Pain 0 6 Function 0 9 Total 0 6 Subgroup analyses ICC gt 0 5 Leung et al 74 patients Hong Kong Chinese PRFEQ None 2004 2 age 28 69 with lateral epicondylitis T R Pain ICC 0 99 reliability Function ICC 0 99 Total ICC 0 99 SEM Pain 0 99 Function 2 38 Total 3 28 Newcomer et 94 patients age n 22 PRFEQ None al 2005 3 45 5 53 2 F with lateral T R Pain ICC 0 96 epicondylitis reliability 3 Function ICC 0 92 days Total ICC 0 96 Rompe etal 78 patients with T R Pain r 0 92 2007 4 chronic unilateral reliability 1 Function SA r 0 87 MRI confirmed week Function UA 7 0 77 lateral elbow Total r 0 87 tendinopathy that were randomized Internal Pain a 0 92 to i treatment n Consistency Function SA a 0 90 38 age 45 23 Functions UA a 0 70 Page 9 69 47 F ii Total a 0 94 placebo n 40 age 45 18 68 50 F Nilsson et al
17. itis Clinical Orthopaedics amp Related Research 2006 442 149 157 12 Radpasand M Combination of manipulation exercise and physical therapy for the treatment of a 57 year old woman with lateral epicondylitis J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2007 32 2 166 172 Page 23 13 Connell D Datir A Alyas F Curtis M Treatment of lateral epicondylitis using skin derived tenocyte like cells Br J Sports Med 2009 43 293 298 14 Grewal R MacDermid JC Shah P King GJW Functional outcomes of arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon release in chronic lateral epicondylitis J Jand Surg 2009 34A 849 857 15 Radpasand M Owens E Combined multimodal therapies for chronic tennis elbow pilot study to test protocols for a randomized clinical trial J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2009 32 7 571 585 16 Clarke AW Ahmad M Curtis M Connell DA Lateral elbow tendinopathy correlation of ultrasound findings with pain and functional disability Am J Sports Med 2010 38 6 1209 1214 Page 24
18. r 0 411 Tenderness Function SA r 0 204 Function UA r 0 423 Total r 0 441 r with Pain r 0 356 maximum Function SA r 0 366 group strength Function UA r 0 352 Total r 0 427 Blanchette et al 2010 8 32 patients age 45 12 14M 18F with lateral epicondylitis Construct Baseline r with VAS Canadian French PRTEE Pain r 0 65 Function r 0 73 Page 13 Total r 0 72 r with pain Pain r 0 39 free grip Function r 0 35 Total r 0 38 12 weeks r with VAS Total r 0 77 r with pain Total r 0 49 free grip 3 months r with VAS Total r 0 64 Legend r Pearson correlation coefficient r Spearman s correlation coefficient not statistically significant p gt 0 05 Abbreviations DASH Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder Hand F female M male PFG Pain Free Grip PRFEQ Patient Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire PRTEE Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation SF 36 BP SF 36 Bodily Pain SF 36 PF SF 36 Physical Function SF 36 RP SF 36 Role Physical SF 36 SF SF 36 Social Function VAS Visual Analogue Scale UEFS Upper Extremity Functions Scale PREE Patient rated elbow evaluation Page 14 Table 3 Responsiveness to Change or Longitudinal validation of the PRTEE in published studies Study Population Type PRTEE Results Comparators Newcomer
19. s age 43 25 61 30M 32F with lateral elbow tendinopathy who underwent 6 months of non operative standardized treatment Pre treatment Post treatment Mean change 78 10 8 51 97 28 35 0 0 91 49 33 6 91 20 Legend r Pearson s correlation coefficient statistically insignificant p gt 0 05 Abbreviations DASH Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder Hand F Female M Male PRFEQ Patient Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire PRTEE Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation VAS Visual Analogue Scale Function SA Functions Special Activities subscale Function UA Function Usual Activities IQR interquartile range MEPI Mayo Elbow Performance Index ASES e American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Elbow score SF 12 Short Form 12 Page 22 Bibliography of Published Studies 1 Overend TJ Wuori Fearn JL Kramer JF et al Reliability of a patient rated forearm evaluation questionnaire for patients with lateral epicondylitis J Hand Ther 1999 12 31 37 2 Leung HB Yen CH Tse PYT Reliability of Hong Kong Chinese version of the Patient rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire for lateral epicondylitis Hong Kong Med J 2004 10 172 177 3 Newcomer KL Martinez Silvestrini JA Schaefer MP et al Sensitivity of the Patient rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire in lateral epicondylitis J Hand Ther 2005 18 400 406 4 Rompe JD Overend TJ MacDermid JC Validation of the Pati
20. s with Construct 4 chronic unilateral MRI confirmed r with Pain r 0 75 lateral elbow Thomsen test Function SA r 0 80 tendinopathy that Function UA r 0 55 were randomized to Total r 0 84 i treatment n 38 age 45 23 69 r with UEFS Painr 0 05 47 F ii placebo Function SA r 0 02 n 40 age 45 18 Function UA r 0 01 68 50 F Total r 0 03 r with Roles Pain r 0 01 and Maudsley Function SA r 0 02 Function UA r 0 00 Total 0 02 r with DASH Pain 2 0 67 Function SA r 0 69 Function UA r 0 45 Total r 0 75 Nilsson et al 54 patients age 46 Construct Swedish PRTEE German PREE 2008 6 25F 29M with Concurrent unilateral epicondylitis r with DASH Pain r 0 79 r 0 61 epicondylalgia symptoms Function r 0 83 Page 12 r with DASH function r with DASH total Total r 0 84 Pain r 0 82 Function r 0 90 Total r 0 91 Pain r 0 78 Function r 0 90 Total r 0 88 r 0 83 r 0 73 r with Roles Pain r 0 67 amp Maudsley Function r 0 79 Total r 0 78 Altan et al 2010 50 patients age Concurrent Turkish PRTEE 7 47 52 34 60 14M 36F with lateral r with DASH Pain r 0 501 epicondylitis Function SA r 0 622 Function UA r 0 568 Total r 0 676 r with Quick Pain r 0 403 DASH Function SA r 0 523 Function UA r 0 554 Total r 0 589 Construct r with Pain
21. tedutasens p 13 Bibliography of Published Studies ss s au cdincetpissennainty vavkbupaw age vinicawewentne tonrdoareeeanava de 15 Page 2 Introduction What is the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation PRTEE The PRTEE formerly known as the Patient Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire PRFEQ is a 15 item questionnaire designed to measure forearm pain and disability in patients with lateral epicondylitis also known as tennis elbow The PRTEE allows patients to rate their levels of tennis elbow pain and disability from 0 to 10 and consists of 2 subscales 1 PAIN subscale 0 no pain 10 worst imaginable gt Pain 5 items 2 FUNCTION subscale 0 no difficulty 10 unable to do gt Specific activities 6 items gt Usual activities 4 items In addition to the individual subscale scores a total score can be computed on a scale of 100 0 no disability where pain and functional problems are weighted equally see How to Score the PRTEE for detailed scoring instructions Page 3 Instrument Development Designing the PRTEE Formerly known as the Patient Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire PRFEQ the PRTEE was developed so that tennis elbow braces could be evaluated for a master s project The PRTEE was based on the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation PRWE and also incorporated information from a previous study that evaluated the psychometric properties of outcome measures for patients with lateral
Download Pdf Manuals
Related Search