Sensitivity to change or responsiveness: The PREE was found to exhibit large effect sizes (ES) and standardised Response Means (SRM) in a total elbow arthroplasty sample (ES 1.50, SRM 1.37) ( Angst et al 2012). A study which included 128 patients with varied elbow pathologies found the PREE to exhibit large ES (1.6) and SRM (1.7) ( Vincent et al 2012).

BGJ398 in vivo None of the studies has used a criterion measure like the Global Rating of Change scale (GRC) which would enable calculation of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) which could make this measure even more clinically relevant. Elbow disorders are one of the important causes for pain and functional limitation in the upper limb. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends the use of valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measures. The PREE was designed to measure

pain and functional disability; and in the limited number of available studies has shown high reliability and responsiveness; and appropriate construct validity. Its structure has been Galunisertib concentration supported by both factor analysis and Rasch analysis. It has been recommended for use in a score set to measure general health, subjective and objective function in elbow pathology patients (Liem et al. 2012). Angst recommends PREE for ‘every set measures for elbow joint disorders’ and calls it as the most responsive measure when compared to four other measures used to measure elbow pain and disability (Angst et al. 2012). Future studies these to confirm the factor structure and to identify MCID of the PREE would increase our confidence about the measurement properties across different contexts; and contribute to more accurate application of the measure in clinical practice. “
“Latest update: June 2011. Next update: The need for an update will be reviewed in 3 years. Patient group: Adults with hip fracture. Intended

audience: Health care providers involved in the management of patients with hip fracture from point of admission to hospital, through to return to the community. Additional versions: The NICE website contains the full guideline, a short version, a quick reference guide, and a patient version. Expert working group: A 13-member group from the United Kingdom (UK) representing various medical specialties (orthopaedics, rehabilitation, geriatrics, anaesthetics), nursing, and patient representatives comprised the expert working group. Funded by: The guideline was developed by the National Clinical Guideline Centre (NCGC), UK, based at the Royal College of Physicians. Consultation with: The expert working group consulted with the NCGC guideline development group, a panel of 4 expert advisors, and clinical stakeholders in the UK during the development of the guideline.