Conor Kleweno1, Heather Vallier2, Julie Agel1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA; and. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Metrohealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy with which the Majeed Pelvic Score has been reported in the English literature. DATA SOURCES: Databases used to search for literature were PubMed, Embase, and Ovid, restricted to English language from inception to October 2, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Search words used were: Majeed, pelvis, and outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were assessed for descriptions of scoring and proper reporting of Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score. DATA SYNTHESIS: Descriptive statistics were used to report the outcome of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Ninty-two English articles were identified. Twenty-four (26%) articles were identified as including methodology related to the use and scoring of the Majeed Pelvic score. The remaining 68 presented mean Majeed scores with no methodological information. None (0/92) discussed how the range of possible scores for the most severe function was applied. Six (7%) reported adjusted scores for patients not working. Three (3%) included a discussion of the scores as adjusted for patients working before injury compared with those not working. Ten (11%) addressed the categorization of scores by excellent to poor describing what raw scores defined those categories. We observed poor accuracy and notable inconsistency in the use and reporting of the Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score in the literature. These data demonstrate that interpretation and comparison of research reporting this score should be done cautiously. Future studies should include specific information as to how the Majeed instrument calculated to allow for verification of the presented scores and subsequent conclusions.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy with which the Majeed Pelvic Score has been reported in the English literature. DATA SOURCES: Databases used to search for literature were PubMed, Embase, and Ovid, restricted to English language from inception to October 2, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Search words used were: Majeed, pelvis, and outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were assessed for descriptions of scoring and proper reporting of Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score. DATA SYNTHESIS: Descriptive statistics were used to report the outcome of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Ninty-two English articles were identified. Twenty-four (26%) articles were identified as including methodology related to the use and scoring of the Majeed Pelvic score. The remaining 68 presented mean Majeed scores with no methodological information. None (0/92) discussed how the range of possible scores for the most severe function was applied. Six (7%) reported adjusted scores for patients not working. Three (3%) included a discussion of the scores as adjusted for patients working before injury compared with those not working. Ten (11%) addressed the categorization of scores by excellent to poor describing what raw scores defined those categories. We observed poor accuracy and notable inconsistency in the use and reporting of the Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score in the literature. These data demonstrate that interpretation and comparison of research reporting this score should be done cautiously. Future studies should include specific information as to how the Majeed instrument calculated to allow for verification of the presented scores and subsequent conclusions.