Blond McIndoe Laboratories, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Department of Plastic Surgery & Burns, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Neurosurgery. 2021 Jun 15;89(1):22-30. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyab060.
Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is common, leading to reduced function, pain, and psychological impact. Treatment has not progressed partly due to inability to compare outcomes between centers managing PNI. Numerous outcome measures exist but there is no consensus on which outcome measures to use nor when.
To perform a systematic review in order to describe and classify outcome measures used in PNI.
A search of Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Clinical Trials) was conducted. Randomized control trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-controlled and case series (≥5 participants) published from inception of the database until 2019 investigating adult patients with a traumatic upper limb PNI in which an outcome measurement was utilized were included.
A total of 96 studies were included (15 RCTs, 8 case-control studies, 18 cohort studies, 5 observational studies, and the remainder were case series or retrospective reviews). A total of 56 individual outcome measures were identified, utilized across 28 different countries and 7097 patients. Ten core domains were defined: sensory subjective, sensory objective, motor subjective, motor objective, sensorimotor function, psychology and well-being, disability, quality of life, pain and discomfort, and neurotrophic measures.
Lack of consensus on outcome measure use hinders comparison of outcomes between nerve injury centers and the development of novel treatments. Development of a core outcome set will help standardize outcome reporting, improve translation of novel treatments from lab to clinical practice, and ensure future research in PNI is more amenable to systematic review and meta-analysis.
周围神经损伤(PNI)较为常见,可导致功能下降、疼痛和心理影响。部分原因是无法比较管理 PNI 的中心之间的结果,导致治疗进展缓慢。存在许多结果测量方法,但对于使用哪些结果测量方法以及何时使用尚无共识。
进行系统评价,以描述和分类 PNI 中使用的结果测量方法。
在 Ovid Medline、Ovid Embase、补充医学数据库(AMED)和 Cochrane 临床对照试验中心(CENTRAL)中进行检索。纳入了从数据库开始到 2019 年期间,调查外伤性上肢 PNI 成年患者的随机对照试验(RCT)、队列研究和病例对照研究以及病例系列研究(≥5 例患者),这些研究均使用了结果测量方法。
共纳入 96 项研究(15 项 RCT、8 项病例对照研究、18 项队列研究、5 项观察性研究,其余为病例系列或回顾性研究)。共确定了 56 种不同的个体结果测量方法,这些方法在 28 个不同国家和 7097 名患者中得到应用。定义了 10 个核心领域:感觉主观、感觉客观、运动主观、运动客观、感觉运动功能、心理和幸福感、残疾、生活质量、疼痛和不适以及神经营养措施。
缺乏对结果测量方法使用的共识,阻碍了神经损伤中心之间结果的比较和新治疗方法的发展。制定核心结果集将有助于标准化结果报告,促进从实验室到临床实践的新型治疗方法的转化,并确保未来的 PNI 研究更适合系统评价和荟萃分析。