目的:广泛回顾用于评估手骨折患者心理测量结果的患者报告结果指标(PROM)。
方法:进行了基于Consensus的健康测量指标选择标准(COSMIN)方法学综述。搜索了六个电子数据库(Medline,Embase,Scopus,WebofScience,PsycINFO,CINAHL)用于评估PROM评估手骨折恢复的心理测量特性的研究。标题和摘要,全文回顾,由两名评审员进行质量评估和数据提取.任何分歧都在三分之一的人审查后得到解决,专家审稿人。纳入研究的质量评估使用COSMIN核对表进行。
结果:本次COSMIN综述发现,仅有4项研究在评估PROM在手骨折中的测量特性方面符合纳入标准。只有手臂残疾的结构效度,肩膀,手(DASH)快速DASH(QDASH)和Duruoz手牌指数(DHI),以及DASH的响应能力,患者特定功能量表(PSFS),在这些研究中,我们对患者级腕手评估(PRWHE)和密歇根手部结果问卷(MHQ)进行了评估.研究的总体评级被评估为不足或不确定,证据质量被评估为中等,低,或者我们的团队很低。
结论:这项研究发现,在医学文献中缺乏关于手部骨折患者PROM测量特性的证据。纳入的4项研究没有提供高质量的数据来支持在手骨折患者中使用这些PROMS。需要对更多的PROM进行更多的研究。这对于如何在手研究和临床实践中在临床研究中测量结果具有重要的影响。
手部骨折是成人最常见的骨折类型。它们通过日常活动在短期内影响患者,并可能产生长期影响,特别是对在工作和家中大量使用双手的人。手部骨折的恢复,不管是什么治疗,可以通过患者以频繁的时间间隔完成的问卷来捕获。我们研究了问卷,可以为这些患者这样做,在以前的研究中进行了评估。尽管这是一个重要的话题,我们只发现了一些这样做的研究,这些在他们的评估中不是很稳健。这项研究表明,该领域需要更多的工作,这将对临床实践和未来的研究非常有帮助。
OBJECTIVE: To extensively review Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to assess outcomes in persons with hand fractures in terms of their psychometric properties.
METHODS: A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (
COSMIN) methodological review was conducted. Six electronic databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL) for studies evaluating the psychometric properties of PROMs assessing recovery from hand fracture. Titles and abstracts, full text review, quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved after review by a third, expert reviewer. Quality assessment of included studies was performed using the
COSMIN checklist.
RESULTS: This
COSMIN review found that there were only 4 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria in terms of assessing measurement properties of PROMs in hand fractures. Only the construct validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), the Quick DASH (QDASH) and the Duruoz Hand Index (DHI), and the responsiveness of the DASH, the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), the Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) were assessed in these studies. The overall rating of the studies was assessed as insufficient or indeterminate and quality of evidence was assessed as moderate, low, or very low by our team.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that there is a lack of evidence in the medical literature with regards to the measurement properties of PROMs in patients with hand fractures. The 4 included studies do not provide good quality data to support the use of these PROMS in patients with hand fractures. There is a need for more studies for more PROMs. This has important consequences for how outcomes will be measured in clinical studies in hand research and in clinical practice.
Hand fractures are some of the most common types of fractures in adults. They affect patients in the short term with everyday activities and can have a long-term impact especially on people who use their hands a lot at work and at home. The recovery from a hand fracture, with whatever treatment, can be captured by questionnaires completed by patients at frequent time intervals. We looked at whether questionnaires, which could do so for these patients, have been assessed in previous studies. Even though this is an important topic, we only found a handful of studies which have done so, and these were not very robust in their assessment. This study indicates that there needs to be more work in the field which will be very helpful for clinical practice and future research.