Nicholas F Hug1, Brandon W Smith2, Sarada Sakamuri1,3, Michael Jensen1, David A Purger1, Robert J Spinner4, Thomas J Wilson5. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 453 Quarry Road, 250E, Stanford, Palo Alto, CA, 94304-5327, USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 453 Quarry Road, 250E, Stanford, Palo Alto, CA, 94304-5327, USA. wilsontj@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is a strong need for a set of consensus outcomes to be utilized for future studies on cubital tunnel syndrome. The goal was to assess the outcome measures utilized in the cubital tunnel syndrome literature as a way of measuring popularity/acceptability and then to perform a literature review for the most commonly used outcomes. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the pubmed.gov database and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). For each article, the following data were abstracted: study type, motor outcome(s), sensory outcome(s), composite outcome(s), patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric(s), pain outcome(s), psychological outcome(s), electrodiagnostic outcome(s), and any other outcomes that were used. RESULTS: A composite outcome was reported in 52/85 (61%) studies, with the modified Bishop score (27/85; 32%) most common. A motor outcome was reported in 44/85 (52%) studies, with dynamometry (38/85; 45%) most common. The majority of studies (55%) did not report a sensory outcome. The majority of studies (52%) did not report a PRO. A specific pain outcome was reported in the minority (23/85; 27%), with the visual analogue scale (VAS) (22/85; 26%) most common. Pre- and postoperative electrodiagnostic results were presented in 22/85 studies (26%). DISCUSSION: Understanding current clinical practice and historical outcomes reporting provides a foundation for discussion regarding the development of a core outcome set for cubital tunnel syndrome. We hope that the data provided in the current study will stoke a discussion that will culminate in a consensus statement for research reporting in cubital tunnel syndrome studies.
PURPOSE: There is a strong need for a set of consensus outcomes to be utilized for future studies on cubital tunnel syndrome. The goal was to assess the outcome measures utilized in the cubital tunnel syndrome literature as a way of measuring popularity/acceptability and then to perform a literature review for the most commonly used outcomes. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the pubmed.gov database and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). For each article, the following data were abstracted: study type, motor outcome(s), sensory outcome(s), composite outcome(s), patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric(s), pain outcome(s), psychological outcome(s), electrodiagnostic outcome(s), and any other outcomes that were used. RESULTS: A composite outcome was reported in 52/85 (61%) studies, with the modified Bishop score (27/85; 32%) most common. A motor outcome was reported in 44/85 (52%) studies, with dynamometry (38/85; 45%) most common. The majority of studies (55%) did not report a sensory outcome. The majority of studies (52%) did not report a PRO. A specific pain outcome was reported in the minority (23/85; 27%), with the visual analogue scale (VAS) (22/85; 26%) most common. Pre- and postoperative electrodiagnostic results were presented in 22/85 studies (26%). DISCUSSION: Understanding current clinical practice and historical outcomes reporting provides a foundation for discussion regarding the development of a core outcome set for cubital tunnel syndrome. We hope that the data provided in the current study will stoke a discussion that will culminate in a consensus statement for research reporting in cubital tunnel syndrome studies.
Authors: Marisa C Registro Fonseca; Emily Lalone; Natalia Claro da Silva; Raquel Metzker Mendes Sugano; Rafael I Barbosa; Alexandre M Marcolino; Joy C MacDermid Journal: Musculoskelet Sci Pract Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 2.520