Display options
Cite
Kleinlugtenbelt YV, Nienhuis RW, Bhandari M, et al. Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid? A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5(4):153-61doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462.
Kleinlugtenbelt, Y. V., Nienhuis, R. W., Bhandari, M., Goslings, J. C., Poolman, R. W., & Scholtes, V. A. (2016). Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid? A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Bone & joint research, 5(4), 153-61. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462
Kleinlugtenbelt, Y V, et al. "Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid? A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist." Bone & joint research vol. 5,4 (2016): 153-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462
Kleinlugtenbelt YV, Nienhuis RW, Bhandari M, Goslings JC, Poolman RW, Scholtes VA. Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid? A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Bone Joint Res. 2016 Apr;5(4):153-61. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462. PMID: 27132246; PMCID: PMC4921040.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Bone Joint Res. 2016 Apr;5(4):153-61. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462.

Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid? A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.

Bone & joint research

Y V Kleinlugtenbelt, R W Nienhuis, M Bhandari, J C Goslings, R W Poolman, V A B Scholtes

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Nico Bolkesteinlaan 75 7416 SEDeventer, The Netherlands [email protected].
  2. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Antonius Ziekenhuis, Koekoekslaan 1, 3435 CM, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
  3. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  4. Trauma Unit, Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  5. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, JointResearch OLVG East, Oosterpark 9, P.O. Box 95500, 1090 HM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

PMID: 27132246 PMCID: PMC4921040 DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property.

METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases to identify relevant clinimetric studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies on measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Level of evidence (strong / moderate / limited / lacking) for each measurement property per PROM was determined by combining the methodological quality and the results of the different clinimetric studies.

RESULTS: In all, 19 out of 1508 identified unique studies were included, in which 12 PROMs were rated. The Patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) were evaluated on most measurement properties. The evidence for the PRWE is moderate that its reliability, validity (content and hypothesis testing), and responsiveness are good. The evidence is limited that its internal consistency and cross-cultural validity are good, and its measurement error is acceptable. There is no evidence for its structural and criterion validity. The evidence for the DASH is moderate that its responsiveness is good. The evidence is limited that its reliability and the validity on hypothesis testing are good. There is no evidence for the other measurement properties.

CONCLUSION: According to this systematic review, there is, at best, moderate evidence that the responsiveness of the PRWE and DASH are good, as are the reliability and validity of the PRWE. We recommend these PROMs in clinical studies in patients with distal radial fractures; however, more clinimetric studies of higher methodological quality are needed to adequately determine the other measurement properties.Cite this article: Dr Y. V. Kleinlugtenbelt. Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid?: A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:153-161. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462.

© 2016 Kleinlugtenbelt et al.

Keywords: COSMIN; Distal radius fracture; PROM; Validation study

References

  1. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Dec;23(12):3698-706 - PubMed
  2. Unfallchirurg. 2007 Jun;110(6):548-52 - PubMed
  3. Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):539-49 - PubMed
  4. J Orthop Trauma. 1998 Nov-Dec;12(8):577-86 - PubMed
  5. Physiother Theory Pract. 2012 Apr;28(3):188-97 - PubMed
  6. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2009;43(2):94-101 - PubMed
  7. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Jan;22(1):26-39 - PubMed
  8. J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Jul;26(7):386-94 - PubMed
  9. J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Sep;22(8 Suppl):S126-30 - PubMed
  10. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2007 Feb;39(1):68-72 - PubMed
  11. J Hand Surg Am. 2007 Jan;32(1):84-90 - PubMed
  12. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2007 Jun;32(3):262-7 - PubMed
  13. Osteoporos Int. 1999;10(2):150-60 - PubMed
  14. J Hand Surg Am. 1996 Sep;21(5):781-7 - PubMed
  15. Hand Clin. 2003 Aug;19(3):437-48, ix - PubMed
  16. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2013 Dec;47(6):489-92 - PubMed
  17. J Hand Ther. 1996 Apr-Jun;9(2):178-83 - PubMed
  18. J Hand Ther. 2013 Jul-Sep;26(3):238-43; quiz 244 - PubMed
  19. Int Orthop. 2008 Feb;32(1):1-6 - PubMed
  20. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83 - PubMed
  21. Qual Life Res. 2012 May;21(4):651-7 - PubMed
  22. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013 May;133(5):589-93 - PubMed
  23. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000 Apr;12(2):149-57 - PubMed
  24. J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Mar;34(3):509-14 - PubMed
  25. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Nov;75(11):1585-92 - PubMed
  26. Nurse Educ Pract. 2008 Sep;8(5):299-301 - PubMed
  27. J Hand Ther. 2008 Oct-Dec;21(4):366-76 - PubMed
  28. Pain. 1983 Sep;17(1):33-44 - PubMed
  29. Injury. 2011 Mar;42(3):253-8 - PubMed
  30. Man Ther. 2014 Dec;19(6):517-26 - PubMed
  31. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jul;128(1):208-20 - PubMed
  32. Qual Life Res. 2009 Oct;18(8):1115-23 - PubMed
  33. Am J Public Health. 1982 Jun;72(6):605-7 - PubMed
  34. J Hand Ther. 2012 Jan-Mar;25(1):65-77; quiz 78 - PubMed
  35. J Hand Surg Am. 1998 Jul;23(4):575-87 - PubMed
  36. Am J Occup Ther. 1973 Jul-Aug;27(5):244-51 - PubMed
  37. J Hand Surg Br. 1995 Dec;20(6):841-55 - PubMed
  38. Hand Clin. 2003 Aug;19(3):361-9 - PubMed
  39. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45 - PubMed
  40. Hand Clin. 2003 Aug;19(3):449-55, ix - PubMed
  41. Arthritis Rheum. 1992 Jan;35(1):1-10 - PubMed
  42. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1962 Jan;44-A:105-14 - PubMed
  43. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):867-72 - PubMed
  44. J Hand Surg Am. 2000 Mar;25(2):330-40 - PubMed
  45. Am J Ind Med. 1996 Jun;29(6):602-8 - PubMed
  46. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Oct;473(10):3235-41 - PubMed
  47. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14):i-iv, 1-74 - PubMed
  48. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Feb;134(2):197-205 - PubMed
  49. Acta Orthop Scand. 1994 Aug;65(4):432-3 - PubMed
  50. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2002 Jul-Aug;140(4):447-51 - PubMed
  51. Injury. 2006 Aug;37(8):691-7 - PubMed

Publication Types