Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38784528›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024

Usefulness of Current Patient-Reported Outcome Scales for ACL Injury: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Stakeholder-Perceived Utility of Specific Constructs and Items Across the Rehabilitation Timeline.

Erich J Petushek, Jed A Diekfuss, Joseph D Lamplot, Anne-Inger Mørtvedt, Lauren C Hoey, Kevin Heo, Camryn B Petit, Kim D Barber Foss, Shayla M Warren, Alexis B Slutsky-Ganesh and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

17 authors.

Erich J PetushekDepartment of Cognitive and Learning Sciences and the Health Research Institute, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA.
Jed A DiekfussEmory Sports Performance And Research Center [SPARC], Flowery Branch, Georgia, USA; Emory Sports Medicine Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Joseph D LamplotCampbell Clinic Orthopaedics, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Anne-Inger Mørtvedtthe Department of Cognitive and Learning Sciences and the Health Research Institute, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA.
Lauren C HoeyDepartment of Biology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kevin HeoEmory Sports Medicine Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Camryn B PetitEmory SPARC, Flowery Branch, Georgia, USA; Emory Sports Medicine Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Kim D Barber FossEmory SPARC, Flowery Branch, Georgia, USA; Emory Sports Medicine Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Shayla M WarrenEmory SPARC, Flowery Branch, Georgia, USA; Emory Sports Medicine Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Alexis B Slutsky-GaneshEmory SPARC, Flowery Branch, Georgia, USA; Emory Sports Medicine Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Charles D KenyonEmory Sports Medicine Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
April L McPhersonEmory SPARC, Flowery Branch, Georgia, USA; Emory Sports Medicine Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Michael E BillerDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Emory Physical Therapy, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Michael NewsomeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta,Georgia, USA; Emory Physical Therapy, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Brian JenningsDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Emory Physical Therapy, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
John W XerogeanesEmory Sports Medicine Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Gregory D MyerEmory SPARC, Flowery Branch, Georgia, USA; Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology & Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; The Micheli Center for Sports Injury Prevention, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA; Youth Physical Development Centre, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Wales, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Numerous patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), often with overlapping constructs of interest and limited content validity. Inefficient scale application increases burden and diminishes overall usefulness for both the patient and practitioner. Purpose: To isolate specific PROM items across a diverse set of constructs that patients and practitioners perceive as having the greatest value at various stages of recovery and return to sport (RTS) in patients after ACLR. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A combined 77 stakeholders participated in this 2-phase mixed-methods investigation. In phase 1, a total of 27 patients and 21 practitioners selected individual PROM items from various constructs that had the greatest utility or importance. In phase 2, the highest rated items were further tested in a head-to-head comparison with 29 stakeholders who attended the 2022 ACL Injury Research Retreat. In addition to the utility assessment, practitioners answered other questions related to importance and timing of PROM assessments. Results: In phase 1, both patients and practitioners shared the same top item in 6 of the 8 (75%) constructs assessed. In phase 2, the construct of psychological burden was rated as "extremely important" by 59% of respondents, followed by physical function (54%), symptoms (35%), and donor site issues (10%). The PROM items of confidence, perceived likelihood of reinjury, and difficulty stopping quickly were rated by a respective 93%, 89%, and 86% of the sample as either "very useful" or "extremely useful." All constructs except donor site issues were rated by most stakeholders to be absolutely necessary to evaluate treatment progress and RTS readiness at the 6-month postoperative time and at RTS. Conclusion: Overall, psychological burden, with specific items related to confidence and reinjury likelihood, were rated as most important and useful by both patients and practitioners. The second most important and useful PROM item was related to higher intensity function (eg, decelerating or jumping/landing activities during sports).

Indexed as

construct relevancecontent validityitem-relevancepatient-reported outcomespsychosocialrecoveryrehabilitationreturn to sportusability

Identifiers

PMID38784528
PMCPMC11113051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.