Kitaoka H B, Patzer G L
Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
Foot Ankle Int. 1997 Jul;18(7):443-6. doi: 10.1177/107110079701800713.
To evaluate grading methods used to report clinical results, we reviewed 1,607 articles related to the foot and ankle published in six orthopaedic journals from 1980 through July 1993. Many clinical studies use criteria such as patient satisfaction to grade results. A numeric score or grade was used in 346 articles: 238 used a grade only, 90 used a numeric score and grade, and 18 used a numeric score only. The numeric score or grade was usually, but not always, reported with details of the individual clinical factors that composed the score or grade. Twenty-three articles used a score before and after treatment. Statistics were used in 62 articles, and in 6 of those the statistics were used to compare clinical condition before and after treatment. This study demonstrated the array of grading methods used in selected orthopaedic journals and indicated the need for standardized grading techniques to allow for more meaningful interpretation of the orthopaedic literature.
为评估用于报告临床结果的分级方法，我们回顾了1980年至1993年7月期间在六种骨科期刊上发表的1607篇与足踝相关的文章。许多临床研究使用诸如患者满意度等标准来对结果进行分级。346篇文章使用了数字评分或等级：238篇仅使用等级，90篇使用数字评分和等级，18篇仅使用数字评分。数字评分或等级通常（但并非总是）会与构成该评分或等级的各个临床因素的详细信息一同报告。23篇文章使用了治疗前后的评分。62篇文章使用了统计学方法，其中6篇使用统计学方法比较治疗前后的临床状况。本研究展示了所选骨科期刊中使用的分级方法的范围，并表明需要标准化的分级技术，以便更有意义地解读骨科文献。
