Nicole Bausch, Emma Eyre, Gemma Pearce, Shea Palmer
{"title":"Knee-Related Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Young Adults: A Scoping Meta-Review.","authors":"Nicole Bausch, Emma Eyre, Gemma Pearce, Shea Palmer","doi":"10.1002/msc.70037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) research on young adults and knee disorders. This scoping meta-review examined a young adult population and aimed to (1) provide an overview of knee-related PROMs research and (2) evaluate the measurement properties of the five most evaluated knee-related PROMs relevant for individual care and group-level analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the PubMed and COSMIN databases was conducted on 18 September 2023 and updated on 25 November 2024 to identify systematic reviews of knee-related PROMs in young adults. Data relevant to individual care and group-level analysis of the five most evaluated PROMs were extracted based on the PROM-cycle and analysed guided by COSMIN recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen systematic reviews were included, evaluating 80 knee-related PROMs. Ten of the 15 systematic reviews did not use a tool to synthesise multiple studies or a PROM evaluation tool. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) had the strongest evidence to be an appropriate PROM for individual care and the Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS) for group-level analysis in a young adult population. However, none of the five PROMs demonstrated sufficient high-quality evidence across all identified measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The scoping meta-review highlights that systemic reviews of measurement properties were reported inconsistently, making it challenging to detangle the extracted data. Therefore, advances in PROMs-specific methods and reporting recommendations should enhance the quality of PROM evidence, allowing readers to appraise relevant evidence and select the most appropriate PROMs for their intended purpose.</p>","PeriodicalId":46945,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Care","volume":"23 1","pages":"e70037"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.70037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) research on young adults and knee disorders. This scoping meta-review examined a young adult population and aimed to (1) provide an overview of knee-related PROMs research and (2) evaluate the measurement properties of the five most evaluated knee-related PROMs relevant for individual care and group-level analysis.
Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed and COSMIN databases was conducted on 18 September 2023 and updated on 25 November 2024 to identify systematic reviews of knee-related PROMs in young adults. Data relevant to individual care and group-level analysis of the five most evaluated PROMs were extracted based on the PROM-cycle and analysed guided by COSMIN recommendations.
Results: Fifteen systematic reviews were included, evaluating 80 knee-related PROMs. Ten of the 15 systematic reviews did not use a tool to synthesise multiple studies or a PROM evaluation tool. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) had the strongest evidence to be an appropriate PROM for individual care and the Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS) for group-level analysis in a young adult population. However, none of the five PROMs demonstrated sufficient high-quality evidence across all identified measurement properties.
Conclusion: The scoping meta-review highlights that systemic reviews of measurement properties were reported inconsistently, making it challenging to detangle the extracted data. Therefore, advances in PROMs-specific methods and reporting recommendations should enhance the quality of PROM evidence, allowing readers to appraise relevant evidence and select the most appropriate PROMs for their intended purpose.
期刊介绍：
Musculoskeletal Care is a peer-reviewed journal for all health professionals committed to the clinical delivery of high quality care for people with musculoskeletal conditions and providing knowledge to support decision making by professionals, patients and policy makers. This journal publishes papers on original research, applied research, review articles and clinical guidelines. Regular topics include patient education, psychological and social impact, patient experiences of health care, clinical up dates and the effectiveness of therapy.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
