Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures assessing recovery from hand fractures: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mousoulis Christos, Firth Andrew D, Marson Alanna, Gagnier Joel J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: 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.
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.