The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2009;91:41-49.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01551
© 2009 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Poolman, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by de Vet, H. C.W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Poolman, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by de Vet, H. C.W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Trauma
Right arrow Spine
Right arrow Adult Hip
Right arrow Adult Knee
Right arrow Foot/Ankle
Right arrow Shoulder
Right arrow Elbow
Right arrow Hand/Wrist
Right arrow Sports
Right arrow Pediatrics
Right arrow Oncology
Right arrow Rehabilitation
Right arrow Education and Training
Right arrow Pain Management
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Outcome Instruments: Rationale for Their Use

Rudolf W. Poolman, MD, PhD1, Marc F. Swiontkowski, MD2, Jeremy C.T. Fairbank, MD, FRCS3, Emil H. Schemitsch, MD, FRCSC4, Sheila Sprague, MSc5 and Henrica C.W. de Vet, PhD6

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Postbus 95500, 1090 HM Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail address: poolman{at}trauma.nl
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota Medical Center, 2450 Riverside Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55454
3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LD, United Kingdom
4 Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital, 55 Queen Street East, Suite 800, Toronto, ON M5C 1R6, Canada
5 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 293 Wellington Street North, Suite 110, Hamilton, ON L8L 8E7, Canada
6 EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity.

The number of outcome instruments available for use in orthopaedic observational studies has increased dramatically in recent years. Properly developed and tested outcome instruments provide a very useful tool for orthopaedic research. Criteria have been proposed to assess the measurement properties and quality of health-status instruments. Unfortunately, not all instruments are developed with use of strict quality criteria. In this article, we discuss these quality criteria and provide the reader with a tool to help select the most appropriate instrument for use in an observational study. We also review the steps for future use of outcome instruments, including the standardization of their use in orthopaedic research.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?