Outcome measures reported for the management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons multicenter taskforce studying proximal humerus fractures reached no consensus on which outcome measures to include in future studies, and currently no gold standard exists. Knowledge of commonly used outcome measures will allow standardization, enabling more consistent proximal humerus fracture treatment comparison. This study identifies the most commonly reported outcome measures for proximal humerus fracture management in recent literature. METHODS: A systematic review identified all English-language articles assessing proximal humerus fractures from 2008 to 2018 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Review articles, meta-analyses, revision surgery, chronic injuries, studies with <15 patients, studies with <12 month follow-up, anatomic/biomechanical studies, and technique articles were excluded. Included studies were assessed for patient demographics and outcome scores, patient satisfaction, complications, range of motion, and strength. RESULTS: Of 655 articles, 74 met inclusion criteria. The number of proximal humerus fractures averaged 74.2 per study (mean patient age, 65.6 years). Mean follow-up was 30.7 months. Neer type 1, 2, 3, and 4 fractures were included in 8%, 51%, 81%, and 88% of studies, respectively. Twenty-two patient-reported outcome instruments were used including the Constant-Murley score (65%), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (31%), visual analog scale pain (27%), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (18%). An average of 2.2 measures per study were reported. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exists in the use of outcome measures across the proximal humerus fracture literature, making treatment comparison challenging. We recommend that future literature on proximal humerus fractures use at least 3 outcomes measures and 1 general health score until the optimal scores are determined.

What Outcome Measures Are Reported in the Management of Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries?

BACKGROUND: Lack of uniformity in reported outcomes makes comparisons between acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injury studies challenging. Knowledge of common outcome measures and standardization will help orthopaedic surgeons report and compare outcomes more consistently. PURPOSE: To identify the most commonly reported outcome measures for ACJ injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify all English-language original articles assessing any type of management of ACJ injuries (acute and chronic) in PubMed and Scopus from 2007 to 2017. Review articles, meta-analyses, studies with less than 5 patients, pediatric studies, technique articles, and biomechanical studies were excluded. The 100 top orthopaedic journals in the English literature were selected for review. Included studies were assessed for patient characteristics and the use of outcome variables, including range of motion (ROM), strength, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), satisfaction, return to work, return to sport, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 605 unique articles were identified; 92 met the inclusion criteria. The average number of ACJ injuries per study was 37, with a mean weighted patient age of 36 years (range, 20.1-57.3 years). The mean follow-up was 36 months (range, 5-290 months). Acute injuries were reported in 59% of studies. ROM and strength measurements were reported in 22.8% and 5.4% of studies. Sixteen different PRO instruments were used. The most commonly reported measures were Constant score (75%), visual analog scale for pain (VAS-pain; 33%) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (21%), Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (19%), and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA; 17%) shoulder score. An average of 2.5 outcome measures per study were reported. The use of 4 or more outcome scores was associated with publication in higher-impact factor journals. CONCLUSION: Inconsistent reporting of multiple outcome measures is present in the ACJ injury literature. The best scoring system for assessing ACJ injury and treatment has not yet been agreed upon. Until improved scoring systems come into general use, we recommend that future literature on ACJ injuries use at least 4 outcome scores and include the commonly used outcome measures (Constant, VAS-pain, ASES, and SST scores) to enable future comparison of patient outcomes across publications.

Outcomes of distal humerus fractures: What are we measuring?

INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the most common outcome measures used in distal humerus fracture studies in order to suggest standardization for future research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review identified articles assessing the outcomes of acute distal humerus fractures from 2006 to 2016 from PubMed and Web of Science databases. The inclusion criterion was studies reporting on the outcomes of treatment of acute distal humerus fractures. Review articles, meta-analyses, studies with<5 patients, technique articles, biomechanical studies, and those focusing on one complication/outcome were excluded. Patient demographics and all outcome measures were reviewed. Journal and demographic factors were then compared. RESULTS: One-hundred-nine of 2158 articles met inclusion criteria. The median number of fractures per study was 35. Mean patient age was 55.0 years. Average follow-up was 35 months. Range-of-motion and strength measurements were reported in 90% and 17% of studies, respectively. Twenty patient-reported outcome instruments were used. The most commonly reported measures were MEPS, DASH, VAS pain, and Quick DASH scores. An average of 1.9 outcome measures were reported per study. A journal impact factor of≥1.5 was associated with more reported outcome measures. Articles including elbow arthroplasty were associated with higher impact factor journals, more outcome measures, and longer follow-up. Level of evidence was not associated with the number of reported outcome measures. DISCUSSION: The current distal humerus fracture literature inconsistently reports outcome measures. More outcome measures were reported in higher impact journals. Future distal humerus fracture studies should include MEPS, DASH or Quick DASH, and VAS Pain scores to allow for appropriate cross-study comparison. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Systematic review.