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
To investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of older adults (aged ≥ 60 years) after tibial plateau fracture (TPF) compared to preinjury and population matched values, and what aspects of treatment were most important to patients. We undertook a retrospective, case-control study of 67 patients at mean 3.5 years (SD 1.3; 1.3 to 6.1) after TPF (47 patients underwent fixation, and 20 nonoperative management). Patients completed EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire, Lower Limb Function Scale (LEFS), and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) for current and recalled prefracture status. Propensity score matching for age, sex, and deprivation in a 1:5 ratio was performed using patient level data from the Health Survey for England to obtain a control group for HRQoL comparison. The primary outcome was the difference in actual (TPF cohort) and expected (matched control) EQ-5D-3L score after TPF.Aims
Methods
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
The aim of this study was to develop a psychometrically sound measure of recovery for use in patients who have suffered an open tibial fracture. An initial pool of 109 items was generated from previous qualitative data relating to recovery following an open tibial fracture. These items were field tested in a cohort of patients recovering from an open tibial fracture. They were asked to comment on the content of the items and structure of the scale. Reduction in the number of items led to a refined scale tested in a larger cohort of patients. Principal components analysis permitted further reduction and the development of a definitive scale. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness were assessed for the retained items.Aims
Methods
