Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29030413›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Patient-reported outcome measures for patients with meniscal tears: a systematic review of measurement properties and evaluation with the COSMIN checklist.

Simon G F Abram, Robert Middleton, David J Beard, Andrew J Price, Sally Hopewell

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The translated Danish version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) is reliable and responsive.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simon G F AbramNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4452-6499
Robert MiddletonNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David J BeardNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew J PriceNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sally HopewellNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2017-10-030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMeniscal tears occur frequently in the population and the most common surgical treatment, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, is performed in approximately two million cases worldwide each year. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarise and critically appraise the evidence for the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with meniscal tears.

designA systematic review was undertaken. Data on reported measurement properties were extracted and the quality of the studies appraised according to Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO, unlimited by language or publication date (last search 20 February 2017). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Development and validation studies reporting the measurement properties of PROMs in patients with meniscal tears were included.

results11 studies and 10 PROMs were included. The overall quality of studies was poor. For measurement of symptoms and functional status, there is only very limited evidence supporting the selection of either the Lysholm Knee Scale, International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form or the Dutch version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. For measuring health-related quality of life, only limited evidence supports the selection of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET). Of all the PROMs evaluated, WOMET has the strongest evidence for content validity.

conclusionFor patients with meniscal tears, there is poor quality and incomplete evidence regarding the validity of the currently available PROMs. Further research is required to ensure these PROMs truly reflect the symptoms, function and quality of life of patients with meniscal tears. PROPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017056847.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeArthroscopyChecklistDisability EvaluationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTibial Meniscus Injuriesknee

Identifiers

PMID29030413
PMCPMC5652504
OpenAlexW2761039832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.