4.5 Article

Outcome assessment for Brachial Plexus birth injury. Results from the iPluto world-wide consensus survey

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 9, 页码 2533-2541

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jor.23901

关键词

peripheral nerve; spinal cord injury; spine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is no consensus regarding strategies to optimally treat children with a brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI). Comparison of outcome data presented by different centers is impossible due to the use of (1) many different outcome measures to evaluate results; (2) different follow-up periods after interventions; and (3) different patient ages at the time of assessment. The goal of iPluto (international PLexus oUtcome sTudy grOup) was to define a standardized dataset which should be minimally collected to evaluate upper limb function in children with BPBI. This dataset must enable comparison of the treatment results of different centers if prospectively used. Three rounds of internet surveys were used to reach consensus on the dataset. A Delphi-derived technique was applied using a nine point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as having attained a rating of 7/8/9 by >=75% of the participants. A total of 59 participants from five continents participated in the Second and Third Rounds of the survey. Consensus was reached regarding four elements: (1) evaluation should take place at the age of 1/3/5/7 years; range of motion in degrees should be measured for (2) passive joint movement; (3) active range of motion; and (4) the Mallet score should be determined. Consensus on how to asses and report outcome for BPBI was only reached on motor items from the Body Function and Structure domain. Consensus regarding additional ICF domains to obtain a more elaborate set of outcome items, should be addressed in future research. (c) 2018 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research (R) Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Research Society. J Orthop Res 36:2533-2541, 2018.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据