4.3 Article

Outcome measurement in the ACL deficient knee - what's the score?

期刊

KNEE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 51-57

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0968-0160(01)00068-0

关键词

anterior cruciate ligament; outcomes assessment; reliability; validity; review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is increasing pressure within the United Kingdom for transparent assessment of the performance of every doctor along with the procedures they perform. Unfortunately, the validation of the outcome measures used to assess such procedures has been questioned. This has been well illustrated in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficient knee. Over 54 different outcome measures used to assess the ACL deficient knee have been identified, few of which were formally assessed at their initial publication. For those most frequently used the Lysholm (I and II) knee scoring scale and Tegner activity score are the only ones to have been adequately Validated prior to use. The Cincinnati rating system and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form were not assessed and the reliability of both measures has since been questioned. Appropriately tested newer measures include the IKDC subjective knee evaluation form, Mohtadi's ACL quality of life outcome measure and the Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). We recommend use of the Lysholm II knee scoring scale and Tegner activity score for clinical follow-up of patients and for use as a gold standard to which future measures can be compared. These have their deficiencies and will ultimately require replacement. In view of the international standing of its authors, the IKDC subjective knee evaluation form is likely to be used in preference to the KOOS despite its attractions. For long-term clinical trials the SF-36 should also be used. Further research is required to produce suitable measures for assessing the ACL deficient knee and this work should be appropriately funded. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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