Department of Orthopedics, Lovisenberg Deaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Oct;20(7):1041-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.024. Epub 2011 Aug 10.
The aim of this study was to evaluate reliability, agreement, and validity of the 1988 version of the Rowe score in patients with superior glenoid labrum lesions (SLAP) or recurrent anterior dislocations.
Thirty-eight patients with SLAP lesions and 33 with anterior recurrent dislocations were independently tested twice by 2 experienced clinicians with the 1988 version of the Rowe score. In addition, the patients completed disease specific and generic questionnaires--the Western Ontario Shoulders Instability Index (WOSI), Oxford Instability Shoulder Score (OISS), and EuroQol (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS)--at both test days.
No significant differences between clinicians and test days were detected for the Rowe score. Limits of agreement of the total score varied from -17.9 to 20.5. For the categorical score (total units), there were significant differences between the 2 examiners (P < .001). The ICC 2.1 was acceptable (>.70) for the total score. No floor or ceiling effects were observed for the total score, but considerable floor and/or ceiling effects were detected for some of the domains. Discriminant validity was acceptable, but content, construct, or convergent validity was not acceptable.
Results using the 1988 version of the Rowe score should be critically interpreted.
本研究旨在评估 1988 版 Rowe 评分在肩盂上唇病变（SLAP）或复发性前脱位患者中的可靠性、一致性和有效性。
38 例 SLAP 病变患者和 33 例复发性前脱位患者由 2 名经验丰富的临床医生分别两次使用 1988 版 Rowe 评分进行独立测试。此外，患者在两次测试日都完成了特定疾病和通用问卷——西部安大略省肩部不稳定指数（WOSI）、牛津不稳定肩部评分（OISS）和 EuroQol（EQ-5D 和 EQ-VAS）。
Rowe 评分在医生之间和测试日之间没有显著差异。总评分的一致性界限从-17.9 到 20.5 不等。对于分类评分（总单位），两名检查者之间存在显著差异（P <.001）。总评分的 ICC 2.1 是可接受的（>.70）。总评分没有出现地板或天花板效应，但一些领域出现了相当大的地板和/或天花板效应。判别效度是可以接受的，但内容、结构或收敛效度不可接受。
使用 1988 版 Rowe 评分的结果应进行批判性解读。
