Correlation of Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) with other Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

Document Type: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Authors

1 Albany Medical Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Albany, NY The University of Texas at Austin, Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA

2 The University of Texas at Austin, Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA

Abstract

Background: The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) is a simple, one-question patient-reported outcome
measure (PROM). We systematically reviewed correlations between SANE and more extensive PROMs.
Methods: We identified studies with correlation coefficients between SANE and other shoulder, knee, and anklespecific
PROMs. We calculated mean, median and range across studies and time points of data collection.
Results: Eleven studies provided 14 correlations, six shoulder-specific PROMs in four studies, six knee-specific PROMs
in six studies and two ankle specific PROMs in one study. The mean correlation comparing SANE and knee-specific
PROMs was 0.60 (SD 0.24), median 0.66, and range 0.12 to 0.88. Among studies comparing SANE and shoulderspecific
PROMs mean correlation was 0.59 (SD 0.20), median 0.62 and range 0.20 to 0.89. The mean correlation
between SANE and ankle-specific PROMs was 0.69 (SD 0.17), median 0.69 and range 0.75 to 0.81.
Conclusion: There seems to be moderate correlation amongst PROMs, even those that are a single question. Future
research might address whether patient reported outcome measure a common underlying construct even when they
consist of a single question.
Level of evidence: V

Keywords

Main Subjects


1. Clarke MG, Dewing CB, Schroder DT, Solomon DJ,
Provencher MT. Normal shoulder outcome score
values in the young, active adult. J Shoulder Elbow
Surg. 2009; 18(3):424-8.
2. Winterstein AP, McGuine TA, Carr KE, Hetzel SJ.
Comparison of IKDC and SANE outcome measures
following knee injury in active female patients. Sports
Health. 2013; 5(6):523-9.
3. Sueyoshi T, Emoto G, Yato T. Correlation between
single assessment numerical evaluation score and
lysholm score in primary total knee arthroplasty
patients. Arthroplast Today. 2018; 4(1):99-102.
4. Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM,
Taylor DC. Comparison of the Single Assessment
Numeric Evaluation method and two shoulder rating
scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery.
Am J Sports Med. 1999; 27(2):214-21.
5. Schmidt S, Ferrer M, Gonzalez M, Gonzalez N, Valderas
JM, Alonso J, et al. Evaluation of shoulder-specific
patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic
and standardized comparison of available evidence. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(3):434-44.
6. Brodke DJ, Saltzman CL, Brodke DS. PROMIS for
orthopaedic outcomes measurement. J Am Acad
Orthop Surg. 2016; 24(11):744-9.
7. Hunt KJ, Hurwit D. Use of patient-reported outcome
measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg
Am. 2013; 95(16):e118(1-9).
8. Lyman S, Hidaka C. Patient-reported outcome
measures-what data do we really need? J Arthoplasty.
2016; 31(6):1144-7.
9. Williams GN, Taylor DC, Gangel TJ, Uhorchak JM,
Arciero RA. Comparison of the single assessment
numeric evaluation method and the Lysholm score.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; 373(1):184-92.
10. Bradbury M, Brosky JA Jr, Walker JF, West K.
Relationship between scores from the Knee Outcome
Survey and a single assessment numerical rating in
patients with patellofemoral pain. Physiother Theory
Pract. 2013; 29(7):531-5.
11. Taylor DC, Posner M, Curl WW, Feagin JA. Isolated
tears of the anterior cruciate ligament: over 30-year
follow-up of patients treated with arthrotomy and
primary repair. Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37(1):65-71.
12. Edmonds EW, Bastrom TP, Roocroft JH, Calandra-Young
VA, Pennock AT. The Pediatric/Adolescent Shoulder
Survey (PASS): a reliable youth questionnaire with
discriminant validity and responsiveness to change.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2017; 5(3):2325967117698466.

13. Cunningham G, Ladermann A, Denard PJ, Kherad O,
Burkhart SS. Correlation between american shoulder
and elbow surgeons and single assessment numerical
evaluation score after rotator cuff or SLAP repair.
Arthroscopy. 2015; 31(9):1688-92.
14. Hawkins RJ, Thigpen CA. Selection, implementation,
and interpretation of patient-centered shoulder
and elbow outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;
27(2):357-62.
15. Pietrosimone B, Luc BA, Duncan A, Saliba SA, Hart
JM, Ingersoll CD. Association between the single
assessment numeric evaluation and the western
Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis
Index. J Athl Train. 2017; 52(6):526-33.
16. Hunt SA, Sherman O. Arthroscopic treatment of
osteochondral lesions of the talus with correlation
of outcome scoring systems. Arthroscopy. 2003;
19(4):360-7.
17. Shelbourne KD, Barnes AF, Gray T. Correlation of a
single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating
with modified Cincinnati knee rating system and
IKDC subjective total scores for patients after ACL
reconstruction or knee arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med.
2012; 40(11):2487-91.
18. Giesinger JM, Kuster MS, Behrend H, Giesinger K.
Association of psychological status and patientreported
physical outcome measures in joint
arthroplasty: a lack of divergent validity. Health Qual
Life Outcomes. 2013; 11(1):64.
19. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Azkarate J,
Guenaga JI. Validation of the Spanish version of
the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or
knee osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and McMaster
Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clin Rheumatol.
2002; 21(6):466-71.
20. Wolfe F. Determinants of WOMAC function, pain and
stiffness scores: evidence for the role of low back
pain, symptom counts, fatigue and depression in
osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999; 38(4):355-61.
21. Brander V, Gondek S, Martin E, Stulberg SD. Pain and
depression influence outcome 5 years after knee
replacement surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;
464(1):21-6.
22. Sharma L, Cahue S, Song J, Hayes K, Pai YC, Dunlop
D. Physical functioning over three years in knee
osteoarthritis: role of psychosocial, local mechanical,
and neuromuscular factors. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;
48(12):3359-70.