The aims of this study were to assess quality of life after hip fractures, to characterize respondents to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to describe the recovery trajectory of hip fracture patients. Data on 35,206 hip fractures (2014 to 2018; 67.2% female) in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register were linked to data from the Norwegian Patient Registry and Statistics Norway. PROMs data were collected using the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) scoring instrument and living patients were invited to respond at four, 12, and 36 months post fracture. Multiple imputation procedures were performed as a model to substitute missing PROM data. Differences in response rates between categories of covariates were analyzed using chi-squared test statistics. The association between patient and socioeconomic characteristics and the reported EQ-5D-3L scores was analyzed using linear regression.Aims
Methods
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases to identify relevant clinimetric studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies on measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Level of evidence (strong / moderate / limited / lacking) for each measurement property per PROM was determined by combining the methodological quality and the results of the different clinimetric studies.Objectives
Methods
