Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Frenchay Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, United Kingdom.
Injury. 2011 Nov;42(11):1205-13. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.12.016. Epub 2011 Jan 12.
Patients with proximal femoral fractures present a difficult problem to health care systems in view of their complex presentations and co-morbidities. Traditionally, the focus of outcome measurement for this patient group has been on mortality and surgical implant success. Increasing recognition of the need to diversify outcome measurements has led to the creation and use of a number of outcome scales. We sought to examine how these scales are being used in the current literature.
Abstracts to over 4000 papers related to proximal femoral fracture research were screened to identify commonly used scales in the five main categories of general quality of life measures (QoL), Activities of Daily Living scales (ADL), mobility and physical performance scales, disease-specific scales and hip-specific scales. The 14 identified scales were then searched for directly, and papers analysed for scale usage, timing and interpretation.
ADL scales were the most commonly used group, followed by QoL measures, which are validated for elderly patients. Scale timing and use varied widely between studies. A large number of scales were found in addition to the 14 identified scales. None of the 14 identified scales were validated for the proximal femoral fracture population.
A good scale must be appropriate in content, method and clinical utility. Its method of application must be reliable, responsive, and validated for the population in question. Outcome scale usage was difficult to assess in proximal femoral fracture research due to difficulties in isolating the relevant research, and in differences in scale timing and interpretation. Scale prevalence was skewed by use by specific research groups.
There is no single unifying scale in widespread use for proximal femoral fracture patients. We would recommend the validation of commonly used scales for this population, and would advise the use of scales from more than one category to assess outcome.
由于股骨近端骨折患者的临床表现复杂且常合并多种合并症,因此给医疗保健系统带来了难题。传统上,该患者群体的预后评估重点一直是死亡率和手术植入物的成功率。人们越来越认识到需要多样化的预后评估指标,因此创建和使用了许多预后量表。我们试图研究这些量表在当前文献中的使用情况。
筛选了 4000 多篇与股骨近端骨折研究相关的论文摘要,以确定在五个主要类别的一般生活质量测量(QoL)、日常生活活动量表(ADL)、活动能力和身体表现量表、疾病特异性量表和髋关节特异性量表中常用的量表。然后直接搜索这 14 种已确定的量表,并分析论文中量表的使用、时间和解释。
ADL 量表是最常用的一组量表,其次是适用于老年患者的 QoL 测量量表。研究之间量表的时间和使用差异很大。除了已确定的 14 种量表之外,还发现了大量的量表。在已确定的 14 种量表中,没有一种是针对股骨近端骨折人群进行验证的。
一个好的量表必须在内容、方法和临床实用性方面都合适。其应用方法必须可靠、敏感,并针对特定人群进行验证。由于难以隔离相关研究,以及在量表时间和解释方面存在差异,因此很难评估股骨近端骨折研究中的量表使用情况。量表的流行程度因特定研究小组的使用而存在偏差。
在股骨近端骨折患者中,没有一种被广泛使用的统一量表。我们建议对该人群中常用的量表进行验证,并建议使用来自多个类别的量表来评估预后。