Identification and Assessment of Outcome Measurement Instruments in Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Author:

Richardson George E.1ORCID,Millward Christopher P.23,Mitchell James W.2,Clark Simon3,Wilby Martin3,Marson Anthony G.24,Williamson Paula R.5,Srikandarajah Nisaharan36ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

2. Institute of Systems, Molecular, and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

3. Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK

4. Department of Neurology, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK

5. Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

6. Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Abstract

Study Design This was a systematic review of surgically managed Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) Outcome Measurement Instruments (OMI). Objective A core outcome set (COS) defines agreed outcomes which should be reported as a minimum in any research study for a specific condition. This study identified OMIs used in the wider CES literature and compare these to the established CESCOS. Methods To identify measurement methods and instruments in the CES surgical outcome evidence base, a systematic review was performed. Medline, Embase and CINAHL plus databases were queried. In addition, a secondary search for validation studies of measurement instruments in CES was undertaken. Identified studies from this search were subject to the COSMIN risk of bias assessment. Results In total, 112 studies were identified investigating surgical outcomes for CES. The majority (80%, n = 90) of these OMI studies were retrospective in nature and only 55% (n = 62) utilised a measurement method or instrument. The remaining 50 studies used study specific definitions for surgical outcomes defined within their methods. Of the 59 measurement instruments identified, 60% (n = 38 instruments) were patient reported outcome measures. Only one validated instrument was identified, which was a patient reported outcome measure. The validated instrument was not used in any study identified in the initial search (to identify measurement instruments). Conclusions This review highlights the wide heterogeneity of measurement instruments used in surgically managed CES research. Subsequently, there is need for consensus agreement on which instrument or instruments should be used to measure each core outcome for CES surgical outcomes.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3