The popularity of outcome measures used in shoulder arthroplasty literature

2020 ◽  
pp. 175857322093586
Author(s):  
Fady Y Hijji ◽  
Thomas G Cheslik ◽  
Andrew D Schneider ◽  
Blake M Schach ◽  
Indresh Venkatarayappa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Specific Measure ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disease Specific

Introduction Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently utilized within orthopaedics to determine the extent of patient disease and the efficacy of surgical treatments. Shoulder arthroplasty is a common treatment option for a range of pathologies; however, substantial variety exists regarding the instruments used within the published literature, limiting their quality and generalizability. The purpose of the present systematic review is to evaluate the overall number and frequency of outcome measures used in all clinical studies evaluating outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. Methods This systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies that assessed patient reported outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and shoulder hemiarthroplasty were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. For each manuscript, the journal, authors, region of origin, level of evidence, and subject/pathology were recorded. The frequency of each reported outcome measure and category. Associations between study characteristics and measure categories were tested using Poisson regression with robust error variance. Results A total of 682 articles were included in the analysis, reporting 42 different PROs. The most popular tools were the Constant-Murley score (49.7%), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Evaluation Form (37.7%), and the Visual Analog Scale (34.3%). A generic outcome tool was used in 287 studies (42.1%), while 645 (94.6%) utilized a shoulder-specific measure and 49 (7.2%) used a disease-specific measure. The use of generic (p<0.001) and disease specific (p<0.001) measures were associated with higher level of evidence. Conclusion Studies assessing patient outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty employ a large range of PRO measuring tools, many of which are non-validated. Furthermore, only a small percentage of studies utilize a combination of tools from different categories despite current recommendations. Consensus on validated and clinically-meaningful tools from multiple categories is necessary to increase the generalizability and applicability of published studies in shoulder arthroplasty literature. Level of Evidence 1

Return to Golf After Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 036354652092307
Author(s):  
Hytham S. Salem ◽  
Do H. Park ◽  
Stephen G. Thon ◽  
Jonathan T. Bravman ◽  
Adam J. Seidl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty ◽  
Rehabilitation Protocol ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Arthroplasty Procedure

Background: The number of golfers aged ≥65 years has increased in recent years, and shoulder arthritis is prevalent in this age group. Guidelines for return to golf (RTG) after shoulder arthroplasty have not been fully established. Purpose: To review the data available in the current literature on RTG after shoulder arthroplasty. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the terms “shoulder,”“arthroplasty,”“replacement,” and “golf.” The authors sought to include all studies investigating RTG after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Outcomes of interest included indications for shoulder arthroplasty, surgical technique, rehabilitation protocol, amount of time between surgery and resumption of golf activity, and patient-reported outcome measures. Results: A total of 10 studies were included, 2 of which reported on golf performance after shoulder arthroplasty. The other 8 studies described return to sports after shoulder arthroplasty with golf-specific data for our analysis. Three studies that included patients who underwent TSA reported RTG rates ranging from 89% to 100% after mean follow-up periods of 5.1 to 8.4 months. Two studies included patients who underwent TSA and HA and reported RTG rates of 77% and 100% after mean intervals of 5.8 and 4.5 months, respectively. Two studies included patients who underwent RSA, with RTG rates of 50% and 79% after mean postoperative intervals of 5.3 and 6 months, respectively. One study included only patients undergoing HA, with an RTG rate of 54% and a mean RTG time of 6.5 months. Varying surgical procedures and baseline patient characteristics precluded our ability to draw conclusions regarding surgical technique, rehabilitation protocol, or patient-reported outcome measures among studies reporting these data. Conclusion: Most patients who undergo a shoulder arthroplasty procedure can expect to resume playing golf approximately 6 months after the index procedure. The rate of return may be lower after RSA and HA as compared with anatomic TSA. The data presented in our review can help physicians counsel patients who wish to continue golf participation after a shoulder arthroplasty procedure.

scholarly journals Generic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review Study Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Seidler ◽  
Erika Mosor ◽  
Margaret R Andrews ◽  
Carolina Watson ◽  
Nick Bott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.

Anatomic versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up comparison

2020 ◽  
pp. 175857322092115
Author(s):  
Bradley S Schoch ◽  
Joseph J King ◽  
Joseph Zuckerman ◽  
Thomas W Wright ◽  
Chris Roche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties

Background Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty improves pain and function with a reported reoperation rate of approximately 1% per year. With improved glenoid fixation, reverse shoulder arthroplasty implants may outperform anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. We evaluate the functional outcomes and reoperation rate of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty at a minimum eight-year follow-up or revision. Methods Between 2005 and 2010, 187 shoulders (137 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, 50 reverse shoulder arthroplasty) were retrospectively reviewed at a mean of 8.8 years. The mean age at surgery was 67 years. Females were more commonly treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Both groups had similar body mass index and comorbidities. Outcome measures evaluated included abduction, forward elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, Simple Shoulder Test, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Score, University of California Los Angeles Shoulder score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Results At follow-up, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty demonstrated greater overhead range of motion and external rotation. All patient-reported outcomes remained similar between groups. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients were more likely to rate shoulders as much better or better after surgery (90% versus 67%, p = 0.004). Complications were observed in 24% of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties and 8% of reverse shoulder arthroplasties (p = 0.02). Reoperation was more common in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties (23% versus 4%, p = 0.003). Discussion At mid-to-long-term follow-up, reverse shoulder arthroplasties demonstrated significantly fewer complications and reoperations than anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties. Despite similar patient-reported outcomes, reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients were more likely to be satisfied with their shoulder.

scholarly journals Articular Cartilage Defects of the Glenohumeral Joint: A Systematic Review of Treatment Options and Outcomes

Cartilage ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 194760351987085 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Fiegen ◽  
Devin P. Leland ◽  
Christopher D. Bernard ◽  
Aaron J. Krych ◽  
Jonathan D. Barlow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Glenohumeral Joint ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Cartilage Defects ◽  
Imaging Findings ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported

Objective To report radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings, patient-reported outcomes, and complications and/or reoperations following nonarthroplasty surgical intervention for focal glenohumeral cartilage defects. Design A literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Patients were included if they possessed a chondral defect of the humeral head, glenoid, or both, which had been treated with a joint preserving nonarthroplasty procedure. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scoring system. Study demographics, surgical technique, imaging findings, patient-reported outcomes, complications, failures, and reoperations were collected. Results Fourteen studies with 98 patients (100 shoulders) met the inclusion criteria. Patient ages ranged from 7 to 74 years. The nonarthroplasty surgical techniques utilized included microfracture (67 shoulders), osteochondral transplantation (28 shoulders), chondrocyte transplantation (4 shoulders), and internal fixation (1 shoulder). The rates of radiographic union and progression of osteoarthritis ranged between 90% to 100% and 57% to 100%, respectively. Visual analog scores ranged from 0 to 1.9 at final follow-up. Mean postoperative ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons) shoulder scores ranged from 75.8-100. Mean postoperative CSS (Constant Shoulder Score) scores ranged from 83.3-94. Mean postoperative SSV (Subjective Shoulder Value) ranged from 70% to 99%. Failure and reoperation rates ranged between 0% to 35% and 0% to 30%, respectively, with the most common reoperation being conversion to prosthetic arthroplasty. Conclusions In this systematic review, nonarthroplasty surgical techniques demonstrated acceptable rates of radiographic healing, improved patient reported outcomes, minimal complications, and low rates of failure or reoperation. Joint preserving techniques are likely viable options to prolong function of the native shoulder and provide short- to midterm pain relief in young and highly active patients. Level of Evidence Level IV.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Pediatric Non-Malignant Hematology: A Systematic Review

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2180-2180
Author(s):  
Robert J Klaassen ◽  
Julia Y. Kinahan ◽  
Johann M. I. Graham ◽  
Yamilée V. Hébert ◽  
Katie O'Hearn
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Clinical Environment ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disease Specific

Introduction: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires completed by patients or caregivers without interpretation by healthcare professionals. As such, they allow patient concerns about a variety of healthcare issues to be identified and addressed in an efficient and actionable manner. PROMs can be generic, with questions relevant to multiple disease groups or disease-specific, with questions targeting the symptoms, limitations, and feelings common to the disease group. This systematic review identified generic and disease-specific PROMs for monitoring symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in 4 pediatric non-malignant hematologic disease groups: thalassemia, hemophilia, immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), and sickle cell disease (SCD). Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, HaPI, CINAHL, and PsycTESTS) were searched to identify publications that either validated or used PROMs as an outcome measure in the four disease groups. Articles were excluded when <30% of the population was pediatric (<18 years), when the study setting was inpatient, when the tool had not been validated, or when the article did not report the use of a PROM for monitoring symptoms or HRQoL. Notably, hemophilia records published prior to 2016 were not screened as a systematic review by Limperg et al. (2017) identified validated PROMs in the pediatric hemophilia population and was used to include relevant articles. Results: The search identified 1176 unique records, with 902 records remaining for title and abstract screening after removal of 274 hemophilia articles published prior to the systematic review. Including hemophilia records identified from the 2017 review, 217 articles met inclusion criteria incorporating 107 generic and 20 disease-specific PROMs. Of the generic tools, the most frequent categories identified include psychological well-being (26 tools), general quality of life (19 tools), and family impact (19 tools). The most frequently used tool was the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales (66 studies), appearing 33 times in SCD, 25 times in thalassemia, 5 times in ITP, and 3 times in hemophilia. Other commonly used generic tools include the Short Form Health Survey, Child Health Questionnaire, PROMIS Health Measures, and Child Behaviour Checklist (Table). Disease-specific tools identified in the review include the PedsQL SCD Module, Kids ITP Tool, Haemo-QoL, CHO-KLAT, and TranQol (Table). In addition, 10 studies reported on pain diaries and 9 of these studies were SCD focused, the other being hemophilia focused. Conclusion: This systematic review identified several generic and disease-specific PROMs that have been used in pediatric non-malignant hematology. Although generic tools have been used more frequently, many disease-specific tools have been validated and are available for use in the clinical environment. We are currently conducting focus groups with patients, parents, and clinicians to determine the optimal choice of tools for monitoring symptoms and HRQoL in the pediatric non-malignant clinical environment. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Used in Observational Studies of Adults with Eosinophilic Esophagitis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Alain M. Schoepfer ◽  
Camilla Schürmann ◽  
Sven Trelle ◽  
Marcel Zwahlen ◽  
Christopher Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Eosinophilic Esophagitis ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Topical Corticosteroids ◽  
Therapeutic Trials ◽  
Patient Reported

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Over the last 20 years, diverse outcome measures have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This systematic review aims to identify the readouts used in observational studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation in adult EoE patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We searched MEDLINE and Embase for prospective and retrospective studies (cohorts/case series, randomized open-label, and case-control) evaluating the use of diets, dilation, and topical corticosteroids in adults with EoE. Two authors independently assessed the articles and extracted information about histologic, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes and tools used to assess treatment effects. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We included 69 studies that met inclusion criteria. EoE-associated endoscopic findings (assessed either as absence/presence or using Endoscopic Reference Score) were evaluated in 24/35, 11/17, and 9/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Esophageal eosinophil density was recorded in 32/35, 17/17, and 11/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes were not uniformly used (only in 14, 8, and 3 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively), and most tools were not validated for use in adults with EoE. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Despite the lack of an agreed set of core outcomes that should be recorded and reported in studies in adult EoE patients, endoscopic EoE-associated findings and esophageal eosinophil density are commonly used to assess disease activity in observational studies. Standardization of outcomes and data supporting the use of outcomes are needed to facilitate interpretation of evidence, its synthesis, and comparisons of interventions in meta-analyses of therapeutic trials in adults with EoE.

scholarly journals Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Diabetes: Systematic Review

10.2196/25002 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (8) ◽  
pp. e25002
Author(s):  
Priscilla Jia Ling Wee ◽  
Yu Heng Kwan ◽  
Dionne Hui Fang Loh ◽  
Jie Kie Phang ◽  
Troy H Puar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported

Background The management of diabetes is complex. There is growing recognition of the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as a standardized method of obtaining an outlook on patients’ functional status and well-being. However, no systematic reviews have summarized the studies that investigate the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs. Objective Our aims were to conduct a systematic review of studies investigating the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs by evaluating the methodological quality and overall level of evidence of these PROMs and to categorize them based on the outcome measures assessed. Methods This study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the Embase, PubMed, and PsychINFO databases. The PROMs were evaluated with the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) guidelines. Results A total of 363 articles evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs for diabetes in the adult population were identified, of which 238 unique PROMs from 248 studies reported in 209 articles were validated in the type 2 diabetes population. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 of 9 measurement properties include the Chinese version of the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire (C-PDQ), Diabetes Self-Management Instrument Short Form (DSMI-20), and Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in Hong Kong primary care patients (C-ITAS-HK), of which the C-PDQ has a “sufficient (+)” rating for >4 measurement properties. A total of 43 PROMs meet the COSMIN guidelines for recommendation for use. Conclusions This study identified and synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of 238 unique PROMs for patients with type 2 diabetes and categorized the PROMs according to their outcome measures. These findings may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting appropriate high-quality PROMs for clinical practice and research. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180978; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020180978.

Meniscus repair failure risk does not differ by sex: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-102
Author(s):  
Christopher Hamilton ◽  
David C Flanigan ◽  
Kishan H Patel ◽  
Nathaniel Lundy ◽  
Ryan Blackwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Meniscus Repair ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Female Patients ◽  
Failure Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Meta Analyses

ImportanceMeniscus tears are common knee pathologies that are frequently treated with meniscus repair with a variety of techniques. Regardless of technique and implant choice, it is critical to understand and consider patient factors, including patient sex, which can influence outcome.ObjectiveWe sought to determine if there is an effect of sex on failure risk following meniscus repair.Evidence reviewA systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify studies that reported failure risk independently for male and female patients. Meta-analyses were performed to identify the effect of patient sex on meniscus repair failure risk. Differences in patient-reported outcomes by sex were reported qualitatively.FindingsA total of 886 patients analysed were included in the 11 identified studies, including 556 males and 330 females. Meniscus repair failure was reported in 192 patients (21.7%). The failure risk was 21.1% in males and 21.5% in females. Meta-analyses demonstrated no significant difference in meniscus repair failure risk based on sex in neither the three studies that assessed repair success arthroscopically (p=0.66) nor the eight studies in which failure was defined with clinical assessment or as the need for repeat surgery (p=0.92).Conclusions and relevanceThere are no significant differences in meniscus repair failure risk in male versus female patients in the existing literature. More published data are needed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes of meniscus repair based on sex.Level of evidenceIV, systematic review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document