Current trends in patient-reported outcome measures for clavicle fractures: a focused systematic review of 11 influential orthopaedic journals.

BACKGROUND

Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to follow clavicle fractures, providing an objective means to track outcomes. However, lack of standardization of PROM usage makes cross-study comparison difficult. Therefore, we reviewed articles on clavicle fractures from 11 of the most influential orthopedic journals to assess trends in PROM usage over time and based on geographic location.

METHODS

A focused systematic review of 11 of the most influential orthopedic journals was performed using PubMed. All articles published between 1981 and 2020 with greater than 9 patients reporting clinical outcomes of clavicle fractures were included. For each article, patient demographics, treatment modality, geographic location, and outcome measures used were recorded. Temporal trends were identified using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend and linear regression. Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare between journals, geographic location, study type, and fracture classification.

RESULTS

From the initial literature search of 623 articles, 151 studies reporting on 15,853 primary clavicle fractures were included. Fractures of the middle one-third of the clavicle were most studied in the included literature (71%). Seventeen different PROMs were used, with an average of 1.6 outcome measures per study, and there was a significant increase in the number of PROMs used per article over time (P < .001). The Constant-Murley score was the most-reported outcome measure (44%) followed by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (27%), visual analog scale for pain (23%), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES; 14%). There was a significant difference between the measures used based on geography (P = .002), the most notable being that North American authors use the ASES score more frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PROMs in studies evaluating clavicle fracture treatment outcomes has increased over time, with recent studies reporting more PROMs than older studies, and there are notable differences in usage of the various scores based on geography and journal. Although there is no consensus on the most reliable PROM for assessing clavicle fractures, we recommend the use of at least 2 of the commonly reported PROMs in future studies to facilitate cross-study comparisons.