Shaw Abigail V, Holmes David Gw, Rodrigues Jeremy N, Lane Jennifer Ce, Gardiner Matthew D, Wormald Justin Cr
Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, Leighton Hospital, Crewe, United Kingdom.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022 Apr;75(4):1455-1466. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.033. Epub 2021 Sep 20.
Defining the optimal, evidence-based management of flexor tendon injury remains challenging. Lack of consensus on which measures to use to assess the outcome of interventions is a key issue, especially with regard to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This systematic review defines the landscape of outcome measurement in studies on interventions for flexor tendon injuries to guide future research.
A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted using bespoke search strategies applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL and AMED. A protocol was developed and registered prospectively (CRD42020186780). We identified all studies describing adult patients undergoing interventions for acute hand flexor tendon injuries.
Of the 4844 studies, 114 studies met the final inclusion criteria for evaluating the outcomes of 8127 participants with 9071 injured digits. Studies included 24 randomised controlled trials, 19 cohort studies and 61 case series. Nine different PROMs were used in 24 studies (22%): three site-specific PROMs, one generic quality-of-life measure and four visual analogue scales. Clinician-reported outcome measures were used in 103 studies (96%), such as the range of motion reported in 102 studies (94%). Adverse outcomes were reported in 96 studies (89%), with the most frequently reported adverse outcomes being tendon rupture and infection. Re-operation was reported in 21 studies (19%). The most frequently reported health economic outcome measure was the length of work absence, reported in ten studies (9%).
There is variability in the use of outcome measures used to study interventions for flexor tendon injuries. An independent systematic review of the psychometric properties of the identified outcome measures and a specific multi-stakeholder consensus process may support optimal choice and standardisation for future studies.
确定基于证据的屈指肌腱损伤最佳管理方案仍具有挑战性。对于采用哪些措施来评估干预效果缺乏共识是一个关键问题,尤其是在患者报告结局测量指标(PROMs)方面。本系统评价旨在明确屈指肌腱损伤干预研究中的结局测量情况,以指导未来研究。
采用符合PRISMA标准的系统评价方法,运用定制的检索策略检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO、CENTRAL、CINAHL和AMED数据库。制定了研究方案并进行了前瞻性注册(CRD42020186780)。我们纳入了所有描述成年患者接受急性手部屈指肌腱损伤干预的研究。
在4844项研究中,114项研究符合最终纳入标准,共评估了8127名参与者的9071根受伤手指的结局。这些研究包括24项随机对照试验、19项队列研究和61项病例系列研究。24项研究(22%)使用了9种不同的PROMs:3种特定部位的PROMs、1种通用生活质量测量指标和4种视觉模拟量表。103项研究(96%)使用了临床医生报告的结局测量指标,如102项研究(94%)报告了活动范围。96项研究(89%)报告了不良结局,最常报告的不良结局是肌腱断裂和感染。21项研究(19%)报告了再次手术情况。最常报告的卫生经济结局测量指标是缺勤时间,10项研究(9%)报告了该指标。
在用于研究屈指肌腱损伤干预措施的结局测量指标使用方面存在差异。对已确定的结局测量指标的心理测量特性进行独立的系统评价以及特定的多利益相关方共识过程,可能有助于为未来研究做出最佳选择并实现标准化。