评分与溃疡:探索骨科、运动医学和康复科膝关节评估的患者报告结果。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Pub Date : 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1002/ksa.12334
Aleksandra Królikowska, Paweł Reichert, Eric Hamrin Senorski, Jon Karlsson, Roland Becker, Robert Prill
{"title":"评分与溃疡:探索骨科、运动医学和康复科膝关节评估的患者报告结果。","authors":"Aleksandra Królikowska, Paweł Reichert, Eric Hamrin Senorski, Jon Karlsson, Roland Becker, Robert Prill","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recognizing and addressing the controversies surrounding using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is crucial for enhancing evaluation standards in clinical studies in orthopedics, sports medicine, and rehabilitation. The article comprehensively described the challenges of using PROMs to evaluate knee conditions in these fields. Apart from defining and characterizing patient-reported outcomes and their measures, the article discussed controversies around them, such as using them as primary outcomes. It highlighted the importance of standardizing and validating PROMs. Several initiatives taken to improve the selection of appropriate outcomes for clinical research purposes were described. Additionally, the potential of technology, mainly digital health tools and mobile applications, was mentioned in the context of enhancing the collection and analysis of PROMs. The article also raised the issue of the readability of PROMs, defined as the ease with which they can be read and understood by patients. The article concluded that adopting a complementary approach to treatment evaluation by integrating subjective and objective measures is imperative for accurately assessing efficacy. This comprehensive approach provides a more holistic understanding of patient outcomes, forms the foundation for evidence-based medicine, and informs future healthcare policies. Proactive measures are urgently needed to address concerns and improve the reliability and validity of PROMs for clinical practice and research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: level V.</p>","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scores and sores: Exploring patient-reported outcomes for knee evaluation in orthopaedics, sports medicine and rehabilitation.\",\"authors\":\"Aleksandra Królikowska, Paweł Reichert, Eric Hamrin Senorski, Jon Karlsson, Roland Becker, Robert Prill\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.12334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recognizing and addressing the controversies surrounding using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is crucial for enhancing evaluation standards in clinical studies in orthopedics, sports medicine, and rehabilitation. The article comprehensively described the challenges of using PROMs to evaluate knee conditions in these fields. Apart from defining and characterizing patient-reported outcomes and their measures, the article discussed controversies around them, such as using them as primary outcomes. It highlighted the importance of standardizing and validating PROMs. Several initiatives taken to improve the selection of appropriate outcomes for clinical research purposes were described. Additionally, the potential of technology, mainly digital health tools and mobile applications, was mentioned in the context of enhancing the collection and analysis of PROMs. The article also raised the issue of the readability of PROMs, defined as the ease with which they can be read and understood by patients. The article concluded that adopting a complementary approach to treatment evaluation by integrating subjective and objective measures is imperative for accurately assessing efficacy. This comprehensive approach provides a more holistic understanding of patient outcomes, forms the foundation for evidence-based medicine, and informs future healthcare policies. Proactive measures are urgently needed to address concerns and improve the reliability and validity of PROMs for clinical practice and research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: level V.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12334\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12334","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认识并解决围绕使用患者报告结果指标(PROMs)的争议对于提高骨科、运动医学和康复临床研究的评估标准至关重要。文章全面阐述了在这些领域使用患者报告结果指标评估膝关节状况所面临的挑战。除了定义和描述患者报告的结果及其测量方法外,文章还讨论了围绕这些方法的争议,如将其用作主要结果。文章强调了PROM标准化和验证的重要性。文章还介绍了为改进临床研究中适当结果的选择而采取的几项措施。此外,文章还提到了技术的潜力,主要是数字健康工具和移动应用程序,以加强 PROMs 的收集和分析。文章还提出了 PROMs 的可读性问题,即患者阅读和理解 PROMs 的难易程度。文章的结论是,要准确评估疗效,就必须采用主观和客观相结合的互补方法来评估治疗效果。这种综合方法能更全面地了解患者的治疗效果,为循证医学奠定基础,并为未来的医疗政策提供依据。目前急需采取积极措施来解决临床实践和研究中存在的问题,并提高 PROMs 的可靠性和有效性。证据级别:V 级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Scores and sores: Exploring patient-reported outcomes for knee evaluation in orthopaedics, sports medicine and rehabilitation.

Recognizing and addressing the controversies surrounding using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is crucial for enhancing evaluation standards in clinical studies in orthopedics, sports medicine, and rehabilitation. The article comprehensively described the challenges of using PROMs to evaluate knee conditions in these fields. Apart from defining and characterizing patient-reported outcomes and their measures, the article discussed controversies around them, such as using them as primary outcomes. It highlighted the importance of standardizing and validating PROMs. Several initiatives taken to improve the selection of appropriate outcomes for clinical research purposes were described. Additionally, the potential of technology, mainly digital health tools and mobile applications, was mentioned in the context of enhancing the collection and analysis of PROMs. The article also raised the issue of the readability of PROMs, defined as the ease with which they can be read and understood by patients. The article concluded that adopting a complementary approach to treatment evaluation by integrating subjective and objective measures is imperative for accurately assessing efficacy. This comprehensive approach provides a more holistic understanding of patient outcomes, forms the foundation for evidence-based medicine, and informs future healthcare policies. Proactive measures are urgently needed to address concerns and improve the reliability and validity of PROMs for clinical practice and research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: level V.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
18.40%
发文量
418
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Few other areas of orthopedic surgery and traumatology have undergone such a dramatic evolution in the last 10 years as knee surgery, arthroscopy and sports traumatology. Ranked among the top 33% of journals in both Orthopedics and Sports Sciences, the goal of this European journal is to publish papers about innovative knee surgery, sports trauma surgery and arthroscopy. Each issue features a series of peer-reviewed articles that deal with diagnosis and management and with basic research. Each issue also contains at least one review article about an important clinical problem. Case presentations or short notes about technical innovations are also accepted for publication. The articles cover all aspects of knee surgery and all types of sports trauma; in addition, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention, and all types of arthroscopy (not only the knee but also the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, ankle, etc.) are addressed. Articles on new diagnostic techniques such as MRI and ultrasound and high-quality articles about the biomechanics of joints, muscles and tendons are included. Although this is largely a clinical journal, it is also open to basic research with clinical relevance. Because the journal is supported by a distinguished European Editorial Board, assisted by an international Advisory Board, you can be assured that the journal maintains the highest standards. Official Clinical Journal of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA).
期刊最新文献
Lost in quantity: The urgent need for more quality in orthopaedic research. The transepicondylar distance is a reliable and easily measured parameter for estimating femoral cartilage surface area using MRI. High accuracy in lower limb alignment analysis using convolutional neural networks, with improvements needed for joint-level metrics. No difference in clinical outcome between quadriceps tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without bone block: Results from the Danish Knee Ligament Registry. Virtual reality-based therapy after anterior cruciate ligament injury effectively reduces pain and improves knee function, movement patterns, and dynamic balance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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