Outcome measures quantifying aspects of health in a precise,
efficient, and user-friendly manner are in demand. Computer adaptive
tests (CATs) may overcome the limitations of established fixed scales
and be more adept at measuring outcomes in trauma. The primary objective
of this review was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the
psychometric properties of CATs compared with fixed-length scales
in the assessment of outcome in patients who have suffered trauma
of the upper limb. Study designs, outcome measures and methodological
quality are defined, along with trends in investigation. A search of multiple electronic databases was undertaken on 1
January 2017 with terms related to “CATs”, “orthopaedics”, “trauma”,
and “anatomical regions”. Studies involving adults suffering trauma
to the upper limb, and undergoing any intervention, were eligible.
Those involving the measurement of outcome with any CATs were included.
Identification, screening, and eligibility were undertaken, followed
by the extraction of data and quality assessment using the Consensus-Based
Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria.
The review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria and reg istered (PROSPERO: CRD42016053886).Aims
Materials and 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
Epidemiological studies enhance clinical practice
in a number of ways. However, there are many methodological difficulties
that need to be addressed in designing a study aimed at the collection
and analysis of data concerning fractures and other injuries. Most
can be managed and errors minimised if careful attention is given
to the design and implementation of the research. Cite this article:
The objective of this study was to determine if a synthetic bone
substitute would provide results similar to bone from osteoporotic
femoral heads during Pushout studies were performed with the dynamic hip screw (DHS)
and the DHS Blade in both cadaveric femoral heads and artificial
bone substitutes in the form of polyurethane foam blocks of different
density. The pushout studies were performed as a means of comparing
the force displacement curves produced by each implant within each
material.Introduction
Methods
