Dataset Information

Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery-a systematic review of the literature.

ABSTRACT: Hip preservation surgery is rapidly advancing and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are becoming an integral part of measuring treatment effectiveness. Traditionally the modified Harris hip score has been used as the main outcome measure. More recently, new PRO tools in the field have been developed. We performed a systematic review of the English literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and SPORTDiscus databases to identify the PRO tools used in hip preservation surgery. Our aim was to critically appraise the quality of the questionnaire properties in order to recommend the most appropriate PRO tool for future use. Measurement properties of each PRO questionnaire were rated from excellent to poor, based on Terwee criteria and the results from the included studies. Six PRO tools were identified with description or comparison of their measurement properties in 10 articles. While, most recently developed PRO tools, the hip outcome score (HOS), the Copenhagen hip and groin outcome score (HAGOS) and the international hip outcome tool (iHOT-33) scored better than the others in their measurement properties, iHOT-33 scored the best of all the PRO tools and is recommended for future use in hip preservation surgery.

SUBMITTER: Ramisetty N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4718480 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery-a systematic review of the literature.

Ramisetty N N Kwon Y Y Mohtadi N N

Journal of hip preservation surgery 20150101 1

Hip preservation surgery is rapidly advancing and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are becoming an integral part of measuring treatment effectiveness. Traditionally the modified Harris hip score has been used as the main outcome measure. More recently, new PRO tools in the field have been developed. We performed a systematic review of the English literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and SPORTDiscus databases to identify the PRO tools used in hip ...[more]

PMID: 27011811

Similar Datasets

Project description:Superior canal dehiscence syndrome (SCDS) can be treated surgically in patients with incapacitating symptoms. However, the ideal treatment has not been determined.This systematic literature review aims to assess available evidence on the comparative effectiveness and risks of different surgical treatments regarding: (1) symptom improvement; (2) objectively measurable auditory and vestibular function; (3) adverse effects, and (4) length of hospitalization.A systematic database search according to PRISMA statement was conducted on Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library. In addition, reference lists were searched. No correspondence with the authors was established. The last search was conducted on June 9, 2017.Retrospective and prospective cohort studies were held applicable under the condition that they investigated the association between a surgical treatment method and the relief of vestibular and/or auditory symptoms. Only studies including quantitative assessment of the pre- to postoperative success rate of a surgical treatment method were included. Case reports, reviews, meta-analysis, and studies not published in English, Dutch, or German were excluded.The first author searched literature and extracted data; the first and last analyzed the data.Seventeen studies (354 participants, 367 dehiscences) met the eligibility criteria and were grouped according to surgical approach. Seven combinations of surgical approaches and methods for addressing the dehiscence were identified: plugging, resurfacing, or a combination of both through the middle fossa (middle fossa approach); plugging, resurfacing, or a combination of both through the mastoid (transmastoid approach); round window reinforcement through the ear canal (transcanal approach). Several studies showed high internal validity, but quality was often downgraded due to study design (1). Outcome measures and timing of postsurgical assessment varied among studies, making it unfeasible to pool data to perform a meta-analysis.A standardized protocol including outcome measures and timeframes is needed to compare the effectiveness and safety SCDS treatments. It should include symptom severity assessments and changes in vestibular and auditory function before and after treatment.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures to support value-based care in colorectal surgery. To draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, measures with robust measurement properties are required.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the use and quality of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal surgery.Data sourcesThree major databases were searched for studies using patient-reported outcome measures in the context of colorectal surgery.Study selectionArticles that used patient-reported outcome measures as outcome for colorectal surgical intervention in a comparative effectiveness analysis were included. Exclusion criteria included articles older than 11 years, non-English language, age <18 years, fewer than 40 patients, case reports, review articles, and studies without comparison.Main outcome measuresThis was a quality assessment using a previously reported checklist of psychometric properties.ResultsFrom 2007 to 2018, 368 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. These studies used 165 distinct patient-reported outcome measures. Thirty were used 5 or more times and were selected for quality assessment. Overall, the measures were generally high quality, with 21 (70%) scoring ≥14 on an 18-point scale. Notable weaknesses included management of missing data (14%) and description of literacy level (0%).LimitationsThe study was limited by its use of original articles for quality assessment. Measures were selected for quality analysis based on frequency of use rather than other factors, such as impact of the article or number of patients in the study.ConclusionsPatient-reported outcome measures are widely used in colorectal research. There was a wide range of measures available, and many were used only once. The most frequently used measures are generally high quality, but a majority lack details on how to deal with missing data and information on literacy levels. As the use of patient-reported outcome measures to assess colorectal surgical intervention increases, researchers and practitioners need to become more knowledgeable about the measures available and their quality.

Dataset Information

Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery-a systematic review of the literature.

Publications

Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery-a systematic review of the literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets