ArticleBone & joint open2021
Development of a patient-reported outcome measure in limb reconstruction : a pilot study assessing face validity.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Stanmore Limb Reconstruction Score : validation of a novel patient-reported outcome measure.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Proposal and validation of an angular External Fixation Index (aEFI) for standardized reporting of gradual angular deformity correction: a time-normalized descriptive metric.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Physical and Mental Health in Adults Who Underwent Limb-Lengthening Procedures with Circular External Fixators During Childhood or Adolescence.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- LIMB-Q Kids-German Translation and Cultural Adaptation.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- German Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Limb Deformity-Scoliosis Research Society (LD-SRS) Questionnaire.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Identifying Research Priorities in Limb Reconstruction Surgery in the United Kingdom.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstructionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPatients undergoing limb reconstruction surgery often face a challenging and lengthy process to complete their treatment journey. The majority of existing outcome measures do not adequately capture the patient-reported outcomes relevant to this patient group in a single measure. Following a previous systematic review, the Stanmore Limb Reconstruction Score (SLRS) was designed with the intent to address this need for an effective instrument to measure patient-reported outcomes in limb reconstruction patients. We aim to assess the face validity of this score in a pilot study.
methodsThe SLRS was designed following structured interviews with several groups including patients who have undergone limb reconstruction surgery, limb reconstruction surgeons, specialist nurses, and physiotherapists. This has subsequently undergone further adjustment for language and clarity. The score was then trialled on ten patients who had undergone limb reconstruction surgery, with subsequent structured questioning to understand the perceived suitability of the score.
resultsTen patients completed the score and the subsequent structured interview. Considering the tool as a whole, 100% of respondents felt the score to be comprehensible, relevant, and comprehensive regarding the areas that were important to a patient undergoing limb reconstruction surgery. For individual questions, on a five-point Likert scale, importance/relevance was reported as a mean of 4.78 (4.3 to 5.0), with ability to understand rated as 4.92 (4.7 to 5.0) suggesting high levels of relevance and comprehension. Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level was calculated as 5.2 (10 to 11 years old).
conclusionThe current SLRS has been shown to have acceptable scores from a patient sample regarding relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness. This suggests face validity, however further testing required and is ongoing in a larger cohort of patients to determine the reliability, responsiveness, precision, and criterion validity of the score in this patient group. Cite this article:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.