A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess Achilles tendon rupture management: What's being used and should we be using it?

2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (16) ◽  
pp. 1102-1109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca S Kearney ◽  
Juul Achten ◽  
Sarah E Lamb ◽  
Caroline Plant ◽  
Matthew L Costa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

Operative repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture does not give superior patient-reported outcomes to nonoperative management

2020 ◽  
Vol 102-B (7) ◽  
pp. 933-940 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian F. Maempel ◽  
Nicholas D. Clement ◽  
Neil R. Wickramasinghe ◽  
Andrew D. Duckworth ◽  
John F. Keating
Keyword(s):  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Aims The aim was to compare long-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after operative and nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture in the context of a randomized controlled trial. Methods PROMs including the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS), EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D), satisfaction, net promoter score and data regarding re-rupture, and venous thromboembolic rates were collected for patients randomized to receive either operative or nonoperative treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture in a previous study. Of the 80 patients originally randomized, 64 (33 treated surgically, 31 nonoperatively) patients were followed up at a mean of 15.7 years (13.4 to 17.7). Results There was no statistically significant difference between operatively and nonoperatively treated patients, in SMFA Dysfunction Index (median 1.56 (interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 5.51) vs 1.47 (IQR 0 to 5.15); p = 0.289), SMFA Bother Index (2.08 (IQR 0 to 12.50) vs 0.00 (IQR 0 to 6.25); p = 0.074), ATRS (94 (IQR 86 to 100) vs 95 (IQR 81 to 100); p = 0.313), EQ-5D-5L (1 (IQR 0.75 to 1) vs 1 (IQR 0.84 to 1); p = 0.137) or EQ-5D health today visual analogue score (85 (IQR 72.5 to 95) vs 85 (IQR 8 to 95); p = 0.367). There was no statistically significant difference between operative and nonoperative groups in terms of satisfaction (84% vs 100%; p = 0.119) or willingness to recommend treatment to friends or family (79% vs 87%; p = 0.255). Four nonoperative patients and two in the operative group sustained a re-rupture (p = 0.306). Conclusion Both patient groups reported good results at long-term follow-up. The findings give no evidence of superior long-term patient reported outcomes (as measured by the SMFA) for surgical treatment over nonoperative treatment. There was no demonstrable difference in other patient reported outcome measures, satisfaction, or re-rupture rates at long-term follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):933–940.

scholarly journals Defining Components of Early Functional Rehabilitation for Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 232596711988407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Zellers ◽  
Marianne Christensen ◽  
Inge Lunding Kjær ◽  
Michael Skovdal Rathleff ◽  
Karin Grävare Silbernagel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Functional Rehabilitation ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Early functional rehabilitation is frequently discussed in treating Achilles tendon rupture. A consistent definition of what constitutes early functional rehabilitation has not been established across the literature, despite studies supporting its efficacy. A standardized definition would be helpful to pool data across studies, allow for between-study comparisons, and ultimately work toward developing clinical guidelines. Purpose: To define early functional rehabilitation (including when it is initiated and what it entails) when used to treat Achilles tendon rupture and to identify outcome measures for evaluating the effect of treatment. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies consisted of randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series (≥10 participants) including weightbearing or exercise-based interventions within 8 weeks after Achilles tendon rupture. Results: A total of 174 studies published between 1979 and 2018 were included. Studies were rated a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 17 (15-20) on the Downs & Black checklist and included 9098 participants. Early functional rehabilitation incorporated weightbearing (95%), range of motion (73%), and isometric/strengthening exercises (50%). Weightbearing was initiated within the first week, whereas exercise (eg, ankle range of motion, strengthening, whole-body conditioning) was initiated in the second week. Initiation of exercises varied based on whether treatment was nonsurgical (mean, 3.0 weeks; IQR, 2.0-4.0 weeks) or simple (mean, 2.0 weeks; IQR, 0.0-2.3 weeks) or augmented surgical repair (mean, 0.5 weeks; IQR, 0.0-2.8 weeks) ( P = .017). Functional outcomes including ankle range of motion (n = 84) and strength (n = 76) were reported in 130 studies. Other outcome domains included patient-reported outcomes (n = 89), survey-based functional outcomes (n = 50), and tendon properties (n = 53). Conclusion: Early functional rehabilitation includes weightbearing and a variety of exercise-based interventions initiated within the first 2 weeks after acute Achilles tendon rupture/repair. Because early functional rehabilitation has lacked a standardized definition, interventions and outcome measures are highly variable, and pooling data across studies should be done with attention paid to what was included in the intervention and how treatment was assessed.

scholarly journals Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e044888
Author(s):  
Rita McMorrow ◽  
Barbara Hunter ◽  
Christel Hendrieckx ◽  
Dominika Kwasnicka ◽  
Leanne Cussen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Diabetes Distress ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionType 2 diabetes is a global health priority. People with diabetes are more likely to experience mental health problems relative to people without diabetes. Diabetes guidelines recommend assessment of depression and diabetes distress during diabetes care. This systematic review will examine the effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes.Methods and analysisMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched using a prespecified strategy using a prespecified Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Setting and study design strategy. The date range of the search of all databases will be from inception to 3 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time-series studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case–control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language will be included. Two review authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer, if required, using Covidence software. Two reviewers will undertake risk of bias assessment using checklists appropriate to study design. Data will be extracted using prespecified template. A narrative synthesis will be conducted, with a meta-analysis, if appropriate.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this review of published studies. Presentation of results will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020200246.

scholarly journals Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in melanoma clinical quality registries: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040751
Author(s):  
Zachary Blood ◽  
Anh Tran ◽  
Lauren Caleo ◽  
Robyn Saw ◽  
Mbathio Dieng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Cutaneous Melanoma ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Clinical Quality ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Eortc Qlq

ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018086737.

scholarly journals A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca McKeown ◽  
David R. Ellard ◽  
Abdul-Rasheed Rabiu ◽  
Eleni Karasouli ◽  
Rebecca S. Kearney
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Ankle Fracture ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Ankle fractures are painful and debilitating injuries that pose a significant burden to society and healthcare systems. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials of interventions for ankle fracture but there is little evidence on their validity and reliability. This systematic review aims to identify and appraise evidence for the measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs used in adults with an ankle fracture using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) methodology. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL online databases for evidence of measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs. Articles were included if they assessed or described the development of the PROM in adults with ankle fracture. Articles were ineligible if they used the PROM to assess the measurement properties of another instrument. Abstracts without full articles and conference proceedings were ineligible, as were articles that adapted the PROM under evaluation without any formal justification of the changes as part of a cross-cultural validation or translation process. Two reviewers completed the screening. To assess methodological quality we used COSMIN risk of bias checklist and summarised evidence using COSMIN quality criteria and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data for a sample of articles. Results The searches returned a total of 377 articles. From these, six articles were included after application of eligibility criteria. These articles evaluated three PROMs: A-FORM, OMAS and AAOS. The A-FORM had evidence of a robust development process within the patient population, however lacks post-formulation testing. The OMAS showed sufficient levels of reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. The AAOS showed low quality evidence of sufficient construct validity. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of a particular PROM for use in adult ankle fracture research based on COSMIN methodology. Further validation of these outcome measures is required in order to ensure PROMs used in this area are sufficiently valid and reliable to assess treatment effects. This would enable high quality, evidenced-based management of adults with ankle fracture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document