Literature DB >> 18536080

Measuring arthroscopic outcome.

James J Irrgang1, James H Lubowitz.   

Abstract

In order to measure and report clinical research results, we require the ability to measure our results, and we label our measurement tools "outcome measures." Options are many and include clinician-reported and patient-reported measures. Patient-reported measures include measures of symptoms (such as pain), measures of activity and function (such as work ability or sports participation), and measures of general health status (such as quality of life). Measures of symptoms and measures of activity and function may be specified as joint or region, and disease or injury, specific. We recommend that clinical outcome studies include a combination of these measures. In addition, clinical outcome measures should be practical, widely accepted, reliable, valid and responsive. Finally, the evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness should be specific to the disease and/or population of interest.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18536080     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.10.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  7 in total

1.  Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: telephone results may be positively biased.

Authors:  Jon E Hammarstedt; John M Redmond; Asheesh Gupta; Kevin F Dunne; S Pavan Vemula; Benjamin G Domb
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-10-24       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Validity and responsiveness of the Nottingham clavicle score in clavicle shaft fractures treated with titanium elastic nailing.

Authors:  Karthik Vishwanathan; Shantanu Jain; Amit Patel
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2018-06-19

3.  Is the modified Harris hip score valid and responsive instrument for outcome assessment in the Indian population with pertrochanteric fractures?

Authors:  Karthik Vishwanathan; Keyur Akbari; Amit J Patel
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-01-03

Review 4.  Reporting of non-hip score outcomes following femoroacetabular impingement surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Yan Sim; Nolan S Horner; Darren de Sa; Nicole Simunovic; Jon Karlsson; Olufemi R Ayeni
Journal:  J Hip Preserv Surg       Date:  2015-06-30

5.  Similar views on rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy among physiotherapists and surgeons in Scandinavia: a specialized care survey.

Authors:  T Wörner; K Thorborg; H Moksnes; F Eek
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  The Oxford Shoulder Instability Score; validation in Dutch and first-time assessment of its smallest detectable change.

Authors:  Just A van der Linde; Derk A van Kampen; Loes W A H van Beers; Derek F P van Deurzen; Caroline B Terwee; W Jaap Willems
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Minimal clinically important difference of Liverpool Elbow Score in elbow arthroplasty.

Authors:  Karthik Vishwanathan; Omid Alizadehkhaiyat; Graham J Kemp; Simon P Frostick
Journal:  JSES Open Access       Date:  2017-08-30
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.