外翻手术研究中的患者报告结果测量:应评估哪些内容。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
F T Spindler, S Ettinger, D Arbab, S F Baumbach
{"title":"外翻手术研究中的患者报告结果测量:应评估哪些内容。","authors":"F T Spindler, S Ettinger, D Arbab, S F Baumbach","doi":"10.1007/s00402-024-05523-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In recent years, there has been an increasing demand for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess the outcome following orthopedic surgery. But, we are lacking a standard set of PROMs to assess the outcome of hallux valgus surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze the chosen patient rated outcome scores used in studies reporting on hallux valgus surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was based on a previously published living systematic review. Included were prospective, comparative studies of different surgical procedures or the same procedure for different degrees of deformity. Four common databases were searched for the last decade. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were made by two independent reviewers. Data assessed were the individual PROMs used to assess the outcome of hallux valgus surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>46 studies (30 RCTs and 16 non-randomized prospective studies) met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly used clinical outcome measures were the AOFAS (55%) and the VAS (30%). No differences were found between frequency of the individual scores per the level of evidence or the type of osteotomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on a systematic literature review, the AOFAS and VAS are the most frequently used outcome tools in studies assessing the outcome following hallux valgus surgery. Based on the literature available, the MOXFQ is a more valid alternative.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I; systematic review of prospective comparative (level II) and randomized controlled trials (level I).</p>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"4745-4752"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-reported outcome measures in studies on hallux valgus surgery: what should be assessed.\",\"authors\":\"F T Spindler, S Ettinger, D Arbab, S F Baumbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00402-024-05523-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In recent years, there has been an increasing demand for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess the outcome following orthopedic surgery. But, we are lacking a standard set of PROMs to assess the outcome of hallux valgus surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze the chosen patient rated outcome scores used in studies reporting on hallux valgus surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was based on a previously published living systematic review. Included were prospective, comparative studies of different surgical procedures or the same procedure for different degrees of deformity. Four common databases were searched for the last decade. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were made by two independent reviewers. Data assessed were the individual PROMs used to assess the outcome of hallux valgus surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>46 studies (30 RCTs and 16 non-randomized prospective studies) met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly used clinical outcome measures were the AOFAS (55%) and the VAS (30%). No differences were found between frequency of the individual scores per the level of evidence or the type of osteotomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on a systematic literature review, the AOFAS and VAS are the most frequently used outcome tools in studies assessing the outcome following hallux valgus surgery. Based on the literature available, the MOXFQ is a more valid alternative.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I; systematic review of prospective comparative (level II) and randomized controlled trials (level I).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"4745-4752\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05523-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05523-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:近年来,人们越来越需要患者报告的疗效指标(PROMs)来评估骨科手术后的疗效。但是,我们还缺乏一套标准的 PROMs 来评估外翻手术的疗效。本研究旨在分析在有关外翻手术的研究报告中使用的患者评分结果:本研究以之前发表的一篇活体系统综述为基础。研究对象包括针对不同畸形程度的不同手术方法或相同手术方法的前瞻性比较研究。研究人员检索了过去十年间的四个常用数据库。研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估由两名独立审稿人完成。评估的数据是用于评估拇指外翻手术效果的各个PROMs:46项研究(30项研究性临床试验和16项非随机前瞻性研究)符合纳入标准。最常用的临床疗效指标是AOFAS(55%)和VAS(30%)。不同证据级别或截骨类型的单项评分频率之间未发现差异:结论:根据系统性文献回顾,AOFAS 和 VAS 是评估外翻手术后疗效的研究中最常用的结果工具。根据现有文献,MOXFQ是更有效的替代方法:证据等级:I级;前瞻性比较试验(II级)和随机对照试验(I级)的系统回顾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Patient-reported outcome measures in studies on hallux valgus surgery: what should be assessed.

Patient-reported outcome measures in studies on hallux valgus surgery: what should be assessed.

Introduction: In recent years, there has been an increasing demand for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess the outcome following orthopedic surgery. But, we are lacking a standard set of PROMs to assess the outcome of hallux valgus surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze the chosen patient rated outcome scores used in studies reporting on hallux valgus surgery.

Materials and methods: The study was based on a previously published living systematic review. Included were prospective, comparative studies of different surgical procedures or the same procedure for different degrees of deformity. Four common databases were searched for the last decade. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were made by two independent reviewers. Data assessed were the individual PROMs used to assess the outcome of hallux valgus surgery.

Results: 46 studies (30 RCTs and 16 non-randomized prospective studies) met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly used clinical outcome measures were the AOFAS (55%) and the VAS (30%). No differences were found between frequency of the individual scores per the level of evidence or the type of osteotomy.

Conclusion: Based on a systematic literature review, the AOFAS and VAS are the most frequently used outcome tools in studies assessing the outcome following hallux valgus surgery. Based on the literature available, the MOXFQ is a more valid alternative.

Level of evidence: Level I; systematic review of prospective comparative (level II) and randomized controlled trials (level I).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信