Comprehensiveness of Outcome Reporting in Studies of Articular Cartilage Defects of the Knee.

PURPOSE

To assess the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting after treatment of focal articular cartilage defects in the knee.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature published over the past 5 years (October 2010 to October 2015) in 5 high-impact orthopaedic journals was completed to identify all recent clinical studies tracking outcomes after surgery for focal articular cartilage defects in the knee. A metric reporting score was calculated for each study, according to reporting of 6 cardinal domains: pain, satisfaction, osteoarthritis progression, subjective knee function, objective knee function, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 122 studies included for review, 117 (96%) tracked patient-reported outcomes during follow-up. Nearly two-thirds of studies (63%) monitored progression of osteoarthritis at follow-up. Fewer than half of studies (39%) specifically monitored pain outcomes in patients. One-third of studies (30%) tracked patient satisfaction. Only 21% of studies monitored subjective knee function using proxies such as return to play, and only 17% of studies reported on objective knee function during return visits to the clinic. The average metric reporting score of all studies was 2.6, and nearly half of studies (48%) reported on only 1 or 2 domains of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variability in outcome reporting after cartilage surgery in high-impact orthopaedic journals. Furthermore, most studies do not comprehensively track outcomes across domains. Both factors hinder comparison of results across studies. Future outcome metrics should focus on patient-centered factors to improve both accuracy of results reporting and standardization across studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.