How to Assess Patient’s Outcome?
This chapter illustrates the variety of patient’s reported outcomes and how to choose the best possible one for each research. Patient’s reported outcome is an enormously important evaluation for clinical orthopedic research, because it is directly reflected by the patient’s “subjective” feeling whose improvement is the ultimate goal of our clinical care in general. However, each outcome measure has specific areas of assessment, and the researchers should select one or more which appropriately address their predetermined research questions. In order to design a clinically relevant and informative research study, an appropriate selection of optimal outcome measures is of utmost importance. The choice should be primarily done in consideration of the study purpose. Frequently used outcome measures in the specific research area would be preferable because its result can be compared to previous reports. Language and/or financial problems might limit the selection of the outcome measure especially in non-English speaking countries. Researchers should be aware of the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of their selected outcome measures, and it should be confirmed if they are acceptable for each specific research.
- 3.Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001;14:128–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Bellamy N, Watson Buchanan W, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Greco NJ, Anderson AF, Mann BJ, Cole BJ, Farr J, Nissen CW, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in comparison to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in patients with focal articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(5):891–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Mohtadi NG, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME, Chan D, Safran MR, Parsons N, et al. Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. The Development and validation of a self-administered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic hip disease: the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):595–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:43–9.Google Scholar
- 30.Walton MK, Powers JH III, Hobart J, Patrick D, Marquis P, Vamvakas S, et al. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force for Clinical Outcomes Assessment. Clinical Outcome Assessments: Conceptual Foundation-Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment—Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. Value Health. 2015;18(6):741–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar