Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1150 - 1157
1 Oct 2024
de Klerk HH Verweij LPE Doornberg JN Jaarsma RL Murase T Chen NC van den Bekerom MPJ

Aims

This study aimed to gather insights from elbow experts using the Delphi method to evaluate the influence of patient characteristics and fracture morphology on the choice between operative and nonoperative treatment for coronoid fractures.

Methods

A three-round electronic (e-)modified Delphi survey study was performed between March and December 2023. A total of 55 elbow surgeons from Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America participated, with 48 completing all questionnaires (87%). The panellists evaluated the factors identified as important in literature for treatment decision-making, using a Likert scale ranging from "strongly influences me to recommend nonoperative treatment" (1) to "strongly influences me to recommend operative treatment" (5). Factors achieving Likert scores ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 4.0 were deemed influential for treatment recommendation. Stable consensus is defined as an agreement of ≥ 80% in the second and third rounds.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1306 - 1311
1 Nov 2024
Watts AC McDaid C Hewitt C

Aims

A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement.

Methods

A real-time Delphi survey was conducted over four weeks using outcomes from a scoping review of 362 studies on elbow replacement published between January 1990 and February 2021. A total of 583 outcome descriptors were rationalized to 139 unique outcomes. The survey consisted of 139 outcomes divided into 18 domains. The readability and clarity of the survey was determined by an advisory group including a patient representative. Participants were able to view aggregated responses from other participants in real time and to revisit their responses as many times as they wished during the study period. Participants were able to propose additional items for inclusion. A Patient and Public Inclusion and Engagement (PPIE) panel considered the consensus findings.