Assessment of Tennis Elbow outcome measures in an English Population
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Patient-Led Treatment in Lateral Epicondylar Tendinopathy – A feasibility trial assessing outcome measurement reliability, validity, and responsiveness in England
IRAS ID
213445
Contact name
Jonathan Evans
Contact email
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
Second funder - RD+E R+D small grant, JV/11/11/16
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 10 months, 1 days
Research summary
Tennis elbow is a common problem that gives you a pain on the outside of the elbow. At its worst, the pain can be disabling. A common way of seeing if a treatment for tennis elbow has worked is by asking a set of standard questions. These questions allow a health professional or researcher to measure how badly tennis elbow affects you. This is known as collecting Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM).
There are a lot of different PROMs. Some have been designed well, using a recommended method, others have not been designed well at all. It is also very important that each PROM is tested on the groups of patients you want to measure. Though there are some PROMs that are used in tennis elbow research, none have been tested on UK patients with tennis elbow.
We have selected what we feel are the four best PROMs. We would like to compare them to each other by testing them on a group of 150 tennis elbow patients. We would like to test patients with mild, moderate and severe symptoms. We would also like to test the PROMS ability to reflect how symptoms change over time
We would like to see if one PROM works better in UK patients than all the others. We will then be able to recommend this PROM for future research. We would also like to use this information to help us develop a tool that improves how tennis elbow patients are treated. We would like to use the best PROM to help patients and health professionals select treatments. We think that a PROM may be a way of giving more individual treatments. In this way, we will be delivering care that is based more what the patient feels is important to them.
REC name
East of Scotland Research Ethics Service REC 2
REC reference
17/ES/0017
Date of REC Opinion
3 Mar 2017
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion