How Comprehensive and Efficient Are Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Individuals with Lower Extremity Amputation Undergoing Implantation of Osseointegrated Bone Anchored Limbs?

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2024-03-15 eCollection Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00235
Mohamed E Awad, Danielle Melton, Kylie G Shaw, Guy Lev, Brecca M M Gaffney, Cory L Christiansen, Jason W Stoneback
{"title":"How Comprehensive and Efficient Are Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Individuals with Lower Extremity Amputation Undergoing Implantation of Osseointegrated Bone Anchored Limbs?","authors":"Mohamed E Awad, Danielle Melton, Kylie G Shaw, Guy Lev, Brecca M M Gaffney, Cory L Christiansen, Jason W Stoneback","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>» Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential for measuring quality and functional outcomes after implantation of osseointegrated bone anchored limbs for patients with lower extremity amputation.» Using a novel assessment criterion with 8 domains, this study assessed all commonly used PROMs for their efficiency and comprehensiveness.» Comprehensiveness was scored according to the presence or absence of PROM questions related to these 8 domains (maximum score = 60): mobility (15 items), prosthesis (14 items), pain (10 items), psychosocial status (10 items), independence/self-care (4 items), quality of life/satisfaction (4 items), osseoperception (1 item), general information (1 item), and vitality (1 item).» The efficiency scores were calculated by dividing the comprehensiveness score by the total number of questions answered by the patients with higher scores being deemed more efficient.» The most comprehensive PROMs were Orthotics and Prosthetics User's Survey-Lower Extremity Functional Status (OPUS-LEFS) (score = 36), Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) (score = 31), and Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (score = 27).» The most efficient PROMs were the OPUS-LEFS (score = 1.8) and European Quality of Life (score = 1.4).</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"12 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

» Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential for measuring quality and functional outcomes after implantation of osseointegrated bone anchored limbs for patients with lower extremity amputation.» Using a novel assessment criterion with 8 domains, this study assessed all commonly used PROMs for their efficiency and comprehensiveness.» Comprehensiveness was scored according to the presence or absence of PROM questions related to these 8 domains (maximum score = 60): mobility (15 items), prosthesis (14 items), pain (10 items), psychosocial status (10 items), independence/self-care (4 items), quality of life/satisfaction (4 items), osseoperception (1 item), general information (1 item), and vitality (1 item).» The efficiency scores were calculated by dividing the comprehensiveness score by the total number of questions answered by the patients with higher scores being deemed more efficient.» The most comprehensive PROMs were Orthotics and Prosthetics User's Survey-Lower Extremity Functional Status (OPUS-LEFS) (score = 36), Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) (score = 31), and Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (score = 27).» The most efficient PROMs were the OPUS-LEFS (score = 1.8) and European Quality of Life (score = 1.4).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对下肢截肢者进行骨结合骨锚肢体植入术的患者报告结果测量的全面性和效率如何?
"患者报告结果测量法(PROMs)对于测量下肢截肢患者植入骨结合骨固定肢体后的质量和功能结果至关重要"。这项研究采用一种包含 8 个领域的新型评估标准,对所有常用的 PROMs 的效率和全面性进行了评估"。全面性根据是否存在与这 8 个领域相关的 PROM 问题进行评分(最高分 = 60):活动能力(15 个项目)、假肢(14 个项目)、疼痛(10 个项目)、社会心理状态(10 个项目)、独立性/自理能力(4 个项目)、生活质量/满意度(4 个项目)、骨感知(1 个项目)、一般信息(1 个项目)和活力(1 个项目)"。效率得分的计算方法是将全面性得分除以患者回答的问题总数,得分越高则效率越高。最全面的PROMs是矫形与假肢使用者下肢功能状态调查(OPUS-LEFS)(得分=36)、假肢评估问卷(PEQ)(得分=31)和经腿截肢者问卷(得分=27)"。最有效的 PROMs 是 OPUS-LEFS(得分 = 1.8)和欧洲生活质量(得分 = 1.4)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
期刊最新文献
Health Policy Challenges and Reforms: Critical Updates for Orthopaedic Surgeons. Older Patients May Fare Better Following Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Osteotomies of the Knee for Valgus Malalignment. The Mechanisms and Safety of Corticosteroid Injections in Orthopaedic Surgery. Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Review of Classification, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Best Practices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1