Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
J Orthop Trauma. 2010 Mar;24 Suppl 1:S71-5. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181ca3fbd.
The measurement of clinical outcomes in trauma research is often problematic in that it is subjective and currently no feasible gold standard evaluation is available. Consequently, observed trial results are partly dependent on which outcome measure is used. Precise and useful estimates of treatment effects can only be obtained when using reliable, valid, and responsive instruments for measuring fracture healing. This overview outlines the concept of the validation of outcome measures and provides a summary of available and frequently used instruments in orthopaedic clinical trials. Outcome instruments can be divided into assessments by the clinician and assessments by the patient. Clinician-assessed measures are frequently used in routine practice but have often not been validated before their use in research. They include clinical and radiographic assessments. In contrast, patient-assessed measures have been designed specifically for investigational purposes and measure health on various domains. Some of them have been validated extensively. Critically evaluating established clinician-based assessments and integrating those found to be valid with patient-assessed outcomes into a composite measure of fracture healing constitute major future challenges.
创伤研究中临床结果的测量常常存在问题,因为它是主观的,目前没有可行的金标准评估。因此,观察到的试验结果部分取决于所使用的结果测量方法。只有使用可靠、有效和敏感的骨折愈合测量仪器,才能获得治疗效果的精确和有用的估计。本文概述了结果测量的验证概念,并提供了骨科临床试验中常用仪器的概述。结果测量工具可分为临床医生评估和患者评估。临床医生评估的测量方法在常规实践中经常使用,但在用于研究之前通常没有经过验证。它们包括临床和影像学评估。相比之下,患者评估的测量方法是专门为研究目的而设计的,用于测量各种领域的健康状况。其中一些已经得到了广泛的验证。批判性地评估既定的基于临床医生的评估,并将那些被证明有效的与患者评估的结果整合到骨折愈合的综合测量中,这是未来的主要挑战。