Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01760551

Correlation Between the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form

The American Medical Association's (AMA) Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment is used to rate loss of function and determine compensation and ability to work after injury or illness. The AMA Guides are used by many different systems to determine compensable levels of impairment. However, there are few studies that evaluate reliability or construct validity. (1) In the professional community there exists considerable controversy regarding the accuracy and usefulness of the AMA Guides. (2,3) Commentaries have noted that the AMA Guides do not provide a valid, reliable, evidence-based system for the rating of impairments. (4) Some have argued that the impairment ratings do not reflect an individual's actual loss of function and quality of life (QOL). The AMA guides 5th edition was based on loss of range of motion (ROM). The new 6th edition of the AMA guides is based on diagnosis and inclusion of functional outcomes assessments in the determination of impairment ratings. (5) In the orthopaedic literature the use of patient-derived, objective outcome measures has substantially expanded QOL instruments are categorized as general health or as condition-specific questionnaires. The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) is a general health-based survey of quality of life. It has been validated and is used widely across medical disciplines. (6) The SF-36 was constructed to survey health status in the Medical Outcomes Study. It was designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, and general population surveys. The SF-36 was constructed for self-administration by persons 14 years of age and older, and for administration by a trained interviewer in person or by telephone. (7) The SF-36 is perhaps the most widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) survey instrument in the world today. It is comprised of 36 items that assess eight health concepts: physical functioning, role limitations caused by physical health problems, role limitations caused by emotional problems, social functioning, emotional well-being, energy/fatigue, pain, and general health perceptions. Physical and mental health summary scores are also derived from the eight RAND-36 scales. (8) The aim of this study is to determine the amount of correlation between the by orthopaedic surgeon objectively calculated percentage of impairment scored by the American Medical Association guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment and the by patient subjectively indicated health-related quality of life scored by the SF-36.

Hypotheses: Because of and inclusion of functional outcomes assessments in the determination of impairment ratings the AMA guide 6th edition will have a better correlation with the SF-36. The 6th edition of the AMA guide is based on diagnosis en yield lower impairment percentages than the AMA guide 5th edition that is based on loss of ROM. The SF-36 will have better correlation with the impairment ratings for lower extremities injuries than for upper extremities because it is less valid for the upper extremities.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

14 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis

Amsterdam, North Holland, 1091AC, Netherlands

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • All subjects who have had a medical legal examination

Exclusion criteria

  • exclusion if there is no calculation of the percentage of impairment by the American Medical Association guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment.

Age under 14 years

Treatment and study plan

Primary outcomes

  1. Fifth or Sixth AMA Guide impairment rating

    Time frame: Once at assessment of impairment consultation 1hour

    https://catalog.ama-assn.org/Catalog/product/product_detail.jsp?productId=OP025400

    https://catalog.ama-assn.org/Catalog/product/product_detail.jsp?productId=prod920005

Secondary outcomes

  1. RAND 36

    Time frame: Once at assessment during impairment consultation for app 1hour

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364637

Other outcomes

  1. DASH

    Time frame: Once at assessment during impairment consultation for app 1hour

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18473398

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

JointResearch

Other

Collaborators

  • McMaster University
  • Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis

Registry information

Official study title

Correlation Between the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form.

Important dates

Study start
2010
Primary completion
2012
Study completion
2012
First posted
Jan 4, 2013
Registry last updated
Jan 4, 2013

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.