Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
The Bone & Joint Journal

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 4 | Pages 549 - 555
1 Apr 2012
Lefaivre KA Slobogean GP Valeriote J O’Brien PJ Macadam SA

We performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the use and interpretation of generic and disease-specific functional outcome instruments in the reporting of outcome after the surgical treatment of disruptions of the pelvic ring. A total of 28 papers met our inclusion criteria, with eight reporting only generic outcome instruments, 13 reporting only pelvis-specific outcome instruments, and six reporting both. The Short-Form 36 (SF-36) was by far the most commonly used generic outcome instrument, used in 12 papers, with widely variable reporting of scores. The pelvis-specific outcome instruments were used in 19 studies; the Majeed score in ten, Iowa pelvic score in six, Hannover pelvic score in two and the Orlando pelvic score in one. Four sets of authors, all testing construct validity based on correlation with the SF-36, performed psychometric testing of three pelvis-specific instruments (Majeed, IPS and Orlando scores). No testing of responsiveness, content validity, criterion validity, internal consistency or reproducibility was performed.

The existing literature in this area is inadequate to inform surgeons or patients in a meaningful way about the functional outcomes of these fractures after fixation.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1431 - 1435
1 Nov 2014
Konan S Hossain F Patel S Haddad FS

Accurate, reproducible outcome measures are essential for the evaluation of any orthopaedic procedure, in both clinical practice and research.

Commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have drawbacks such as ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ effects, limitations of worldwide adaptability and an inability to distinguish pain from function. They are also unable to measure the true outcome of an intervention rather than a patient’s perception of that outcome.

Performance-based functional outcome tools may address these problems. It is important that both clinicians and researchers are aware of these measures when dealing with high-demand patients, using a new intervention or implant, or testing a new rehabilitation protocol.

This article provides an overview of some of the clinically-validated performance-based functional outcome tools used in the assessment of patients undergoing hip and knee surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1431–5.