Objective To examine the frequency of use and establish routine clinical practice of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), performance-based OMs and clinician-reported OMs in the assessment of a suspected case of lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET). Methods Physiotherapists from eight countries completed an anonymous online survey, rating their frequency of use (never, rarely, sometimes, often and always) for unidimensional PROMs, multidimensional PROMs, performance-based OMs and clinician-reported OMs. To establish clinical practices, responses were dichotomised into routine (≥70% often/always) and not-routine (≥70% sometimes/rarely/never); items below both thresholds were classified as neither. Results Two hundred ninety-nine respondents completed the survey. No outcome measure met the criteria for routine practice. Eight of 17 multidimensional PROMs, and six of eight clinician-reported OMs met the criteria for not-routine practice. All unidimensional PROMs and performance-based OMs, and a select number of multidimensional PROMs and clinician-reported OMs did not meet the threshold for routine or not-routine practice. Conclusions Our results suggest no single outcome measure is routinely used by physiotherapists assessing a suspected case of LET. It is plausible that physiotherapists select OMs based on patient presentation, rather than the clinical diagnosis, or that outcome measures are perhaps seen more as a research tool than common place in clinical practice.
Heales et al. (2026) studied this question.