Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Arthroscopy. 2011 Feb;27(2):279-86. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2010.08.002. Epub 2010 Oct 29.
The purpose of this study is to systematically review the content and clinimetric evidence (rigor of rating scales and indexes for the description of clinical phenomena) of published patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used to assess femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral hip pathology.
We used Medical Subject Heading terms related to FAI and labrum/labral tears to search the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies of FAI and labral hip pathology. Studies with hip-related PRO instruments, with any operative intervention except total hip arthroplasty, were included. We excluded studies with a skeletally immature population, revision surgeries in more than 10% of cases, or a primary diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis. We conducted a second review using the same databases for studies reporting clinimetric properties of at least 1 of the PRO instruments identified previously. Articles were selected in an independent, stepwise manner by 2 reviewers. Selected articles were evaluated to determine the presence and quality of measurement properties of the outcome instruments.
We found 5 articles assessing 3 PRO instruments: the Hip Outcome Score (HOS), the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, and the 12-item modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The HOS had the highest positive rating for internal consistency, construct validity, agreement, responsiveness, lack of floor/ceiling effect, and interpretability. The Non-Arthritic Hip Score showed evidence for validity and lack of floor/ceiling effect. The modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index was only strong for internal consistency and was indeterminate for construct validity.
Only 3 PRO instruments have shown clinimetric evidence to support their use to measure outcomes in FAI and labral pathology patients. The HOS has the greatest amount of clinimetric evidence and is the most proven instrument for use in this population. This review shows that further clinimetric evaluation of commonly used PRO instruments for nonarthritic hip pathology is warranted.
本研究旨在系统地回顾已发表的用于评估股骨髋臼撞击症(FAI)和盂唇/盂唇撕裂的患者报告结局(PRO)工具的内容和临床计量学证据(评分量表和用于描述临床现象的指标的严谨性)。
我们使用与 FAI 和盂唇/盂唇撕裂相关的医学主题词在 Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库中搜索与 FAI 和盂唇髋关节疾病相关的研究。纳入研究中包含与髋关节相关的 PRO 工具,且仅包括除全髋关节置换术以外的任何手术干预。我们排除了涉及骨骼未成熟人群、翻修手术比例超过 10%或原发性髋关节骨关节炎的研究。我们使用相同的数据库进行了第二次审查,以寻找至少有 1 种先前确定的 PRO 工具的临床计量学特性的研究报告。文章由 2 位评审员独立、逐步地进行选择。选择的文章用于评估结局工具的测量属性的存在和质量。
我们发现 5 篇评估 3 种 PRO 工具的文章:髋关节结局评分(HOS)、非关节炎髋关节评分和 12 项改良西部安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数。HOS 在内部一致性、结构有效性、一致性、反应性、无地板/天花板效应和可解释性方面获得了最高的正面评价。非关节炎髋关节评分显示出有效性和无地板/天花板效应的证据。改良西部安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数仅在内部一致性方面表现出优势,在结构有效性方面则不确定。
只有 3 种 PRO 工具具有支持其用于测量 FAI 和盂唇病变患者结局的临床计量学证据。HOS 具有最多的临床计量学证据,是该人群中最成熟的工具。本综述表明,有必要对常用于非关节炎髋关节疾病的常见 PRO 工具进行进一步的临床计量学评估。