To the editor,I have read the article by Gazi HURİ, and colleagues [1] with great interest. The authors concluded that minimal invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis appears to be a successful technique for the treatment of humerus shaft fractures based on plain radiographs, range of motion assessments and some patient reported outcome (PRO) measure which were American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES), University of California, Los Angles (UCLA), Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and The Disability of The Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores. However, before a PRO measure can be used in a society other than the one in which it was developed, it must be translated and culturally adapted. Additionally, the psychometric properties of the translated version of the PRO measure need to be assessed and compared to those of the original version [2]. Even though, the ASES and DASH have been translated and culturally adapted to Turkish and also psychometric properties of the these outcomes were provided, the authors did not use them in their study [3, 4]. UCLA and MEPI have not been translated and culturally adapted to Turkish yet and also there is not enough evidence to the psychometric properties of the original verison of the UCLA and MEPI. The result of the study Gazi et al, mostly depended on PRO’s. Clearly, reliable, valid, and responsive PRO’s are required in order to enable accurate and complementary examination of the patients’ function. Finally, I advise the authors that they should use the avalible PRO’s which are proven culturally adapted, reliable, valid and responsive in their future studies.