Clinimetric testing of the Persian version of the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaires in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the longitudinal validity and responsiveness of the Persian version of Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET). METHODS: Sixty-four patients with LET completed the PRTEE, DASH, and Global Rating of Change Scale (GRC) at baseline and six weeks. The external and internal responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, minimal detectable change (MDC) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were calculated. RESULTS: No ceiling and floor effects were detected for either the PRTEE or DASH. External responsiveness as an indicator to detect the relationship between change in the measured and external indicator of change was acceptable for both, but higher for the PRTEE (AUC = 0.90; CI: 0.83-0.97) vs. DASH (AUC = 0.80; CI: 69-90). Internal responsiveness to detect intervention related changes indicated slightly superiority in responsiveness for PRTEE. The relative efficiency (1.21), standard effect size (1.14 PRTEE vs. 1.03 DASH), and standard response mean (1.34 PRTEE vs. 1.10 DASH). The MDC were 11 and 12, and MCID were 20 and 18 for the PRTEE and DASH, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both the DASH and PRTEE were responsive in detecting improvement in patients with LET. The PRTEE was shorter, more efficient, and slightly more responsive which supports its use as a core outcome measure in evaluating patients with LET.Implications for RehabilitationThe Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) compared with the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) is a shorter questionnaire with higher psychometric and clinimetric properties for evaluating the patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy.This supports the use of the PRTEE in evaluating patients with elbow tendinopathy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".