Literature DB >> 19411499

Outcome instruments: rationale for their use.

Rudolf W Poolman1, Marc F Swiontkowski, Jeremy C T Fairbank, Emil H Schemitsch, Sheila Sprague, Henrica C W de Vet.   

Abstract

The number of outcome instruments available for use in orthopaedic observational studies has increased dramatically in recent years. Properly developed and tested outcome instruments provide a very useful tool for orthopaedic research. Criteria have been proposed to assess the measurement properties and quality of health-status instruments. Unfortunately, not all instruments are developed with use of strict quality criteria. In this article, we discuss these quality criteria and provide the reader with a tool to help select the most appropriate instrument for use in an observational study. We also review the steps for future use of outcome instruments, including the standardization of their use in orthopaedic research.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19411499      PMCID: PMC2669748          DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01551

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  54 in total

1.  The outcomes movement in orthopaedic surgery: where we are and where we should go.

Authors:  M F Swiontkowski; J A Buckwalter; R B Keller; R Haralson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Development and testing of the UK SF-12 (short form health survey).

Authors:  C Jenkinson; R Layte
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1997-01

3.  Quality-adjusted life years lost to arthritis: effects of gender, race,and social class.

Authors:  R M Kaplan; J E Alcaraz; J P Anderson; M Weisman
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res       Date:  1996-12

4.  Re: Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS).

Authors:  J van Oldenrijk; I N Sierevelt; D Haverkamp; I W Harmse; R W Poolman
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2008-07-03       Impact factor: 6.576

5.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.

Authors:  J Ware; M Kosinski; S D Keller
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness.

Authors:  M F Swiontkowski; R Engelberg; D P Martin; J Agel
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-01-21

8.  Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes.

Authors:  I B Wilson; P D Cleary
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-04       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Is statistical significance clinically important?--A guide to judge the clinical relevance of study findings.

Authors:  Inger N Sierevelt; Jakob van Oldenrijk; Rudolf W Poolman
Journal:  J Long Term Eff Med Implants       Date:  2007

10.  The Dutch version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: a validation study.

Authors:  Ingrid B de Groot; Marein M Favejee; Max Reijman; Jan A N Verhaar; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  27 in total

Review 1.  Instruments to assess patients with rotator cuff pathology: a systematic review of measurement properties.

Authors:  Umile Giuseppe Longo; Daniël Saris; Rudolf W Poolman; Alessandra Berton; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  The changing face of quality in spine surgery.

Authors:  Dieter Grob; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Femoro-acetabular impingement clinical research: is a composite outcome the answer?

Authors:  Olufemi R Ayeni; Mikael Sansone; Darren de Sa; Nicole Simunovic; Asheesh Bedi; Bryan T Kelly; Forough Farrokhyar; Jon Karlsson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-01-25       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Interpreting Patient-Reported Outcome Results: Is One Minimum Clinically Important Difference Really Enough?

Authors:  Dylan L McCreary; Benjamin C Sandberg; Debra C Bohn; Harsh R Parikh; Brian P Cunningham
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2018-11-21

5.  Evidence of Selection Bias and Non-Response Bias in Patient Satisfaction Surveys.

Authors:  Jocelyn Compton; Natalie Glass; Timothy Fowler
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2019

6.  Locked plating of proximal humeral fractures: is function affected by age, time, and fracture patterns?

Authors:  Clifford B Jones; Debra L Sietsema; Daniel K Williams
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  A shortened version of the Western ontario rotator cuff disability index: development and measurement properties.

Authors:  Helen Razmjou; Paul Stratford; Richard Holtby
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 1.037

8.  Discrepancies between patient-reported outcome measures when assessing urinary incontinence or pelvic-prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Michael Due Larsen; Gunnar Lose; Rikke Guldberg; Kim Oren Gradel
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Predictors of disease-specific quality of life after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Authors:  Arjen Kolk; Nienke Wolterbeek; Kiem Gie Auw Yang; Jacco A C Zijl; Ronald N Wessel
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Reliability of Modified Harris Hip Score as a tool for outcome evaluation of Total Hip Replacements in Indian population.

Authors:  Prasoon Kumar; Ramesh Sen; Sameer Aggarwal; Saurabh Agarwal; Rajesh Kumar Rajnish
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-12-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.