Portnoff Brandon S, Byrne Rory A, Hao Kevin A, Gutowski Caroline T, Lin Yang, Hoffman Ryan A, Fedorka Catherine J, King Joseph J, Green Andrew, Paxton E Scott
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 1 Kettle Point Avenue, East Providence, RI, 02914, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 Aug;34(6):2859-2870. doi: 10.1007/s00590-024-04039-w. Epub 2024 Jul 15.
With a lack of standardization among outcome measures in fracture literature, cross-study comparisons remain limited. This systematic review aimed to identify trends in outcome measures reported by studies of the treatment of humeral shaft fractures.
A systematic review was performed of studies reporting clinical outcomes of humeral shaft fractures indexed in PubMed. Extracted data included demographics, fracture characteristics, treatment modalities, outcomes, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), and journal characteristics. Cochran-Armitage tests and linear regressions were used to identify data trends. Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for comparisons between studies.
This review included 197 studies with outcomes of 15,445 humeral shaft fractures. 126 studies reported PROMs and 37 different PROMs were used. The Constant Score was most commonly reported (34% of studies), followed by ASES Score (21%), MEPS (21%), and DASH Score (20%). There was a significant increase in PROM usage over time (p = 0.016) and in articles using three or more PROMs (p = 0.005). The number of PROMs were significantly greater in prospective cohort studies and RCTs (p = 0.012) compared to retrospective cohort studies and case series (p = 0.044 for both). Post-treatment shoulder motion was reported in 43% of studies and 34% reported elbow motion. 86% of studies reported complications as an outcome parameter. Time to union and nonunion rate were published in 69% and 88% of studies, respectively.
This study identified increasing PROM usage over time and disparities in the reporting of outcomes in humeral shaft fracture literature requiring further validation and standardization of available outcome measures.
由于骨折文献中的结局指标缺乏标准化,跨研究比较仍然有限。本系统评价旨在确定肱骨干骨折治疗研究报告的结局指标趋势。
对PubMed索引的报告肱骨干骨折临床结局的研究进行系统评价。提取的数据包括人口统计学、骨折特征、治疗方式、结局、患者报告的结局指标(PROMs)和期刊特征。采用 Cochr an - Armitage检验和线性回归来确定数据趋势。使用Pearson卡方检验和Kruskal - Wallis检验进行研究间的比较。
本评价纳入了197项研究,涉及15445例肱骨干骨折的结局。126项研究报告了PROMs,共使用了37种不同的PROMs。最常报告的是Constant评分(占研究的34%),其次是ASES评分(21%)、MEPS(21%)和DASH评分(20%)。随着时间的推移,PROM的使用显著增加(p = 0.016),在使用三种或更多PROM的文章中也是如此(p = 0.005)。与回顾性队列研究和病例系列相比,前瞻性队列研究和随机对照试验中的PROM数量显著更多(两者p = 0.044)。43%的研究报告了治疗后肩部活动,34%报告了肘部活动。86%的研究将并发症作为结局参数报告。分别有69%和88%的研究发表了愈合时间和不愈合率。
本研究发现随着时间的推移PROM的使用在增加,并且肱骨干骨折文献中结局报告存在差异,这需要对现有的结局指标进行进一步验证和标准化。