Outcome Reporting in Randomized Trials for Shoulder Disorders

Literature Review to Inform the Development of a Core Outcome Set

Matthew J. Page, Hsiaomin Huang, Arianne P. Verhagen, Joel J. Gagnier, Rachelle Buchbinder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported across randomized trials of any interventions for various shoulder disorders. Methods: We searched for shoulder trials included in Cochrane reviews published up to Issue 10, 2015, or indexed in PubMed between 2006 and 2015. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they focused on any intervention for rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, shoulder instability, glenohumeral or acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, shoulder dislocation, proximal humeral or humeral head fractures, or unspecified shoulder pain. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported, with consensus discussion among all authors where required. Results: We included 409 trials, published between 1954 and 2015. Across the trials, we identified 319 different instruments that were classified into 32 domains. Most trials reported a measure of pain (90%), range of motion (78%), and physical function (71%). The recording of adverse events was reported in only 31% of the trials. Muscle strength was reported in 44% of the trials and imaging outcomes in 21%. Other patient-reported outcome measures, such as global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life, work ability, and psychological functioning, were each reported in ≤15% of the trials. Most of the domains were reported at similar frequencies across different shoulder disorders. Conclusion: The domains and measurement instruments reported were widely diverse. Our results provide a foundation for the development of a core outcome set for use in future trials across all shoulder disorders.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)252-259
Number of pages8
JournalArthritis Care and Research
Volume70
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2018

Cite this

@article{dd1d6a2787924522b053f8852a6f3c3c,
title = "Outcome Reporting in Randomized Trials for Shoulder Disorders: Literature Review to Inform the Development of a Core Outcome Set",
abstract = "Objective: To explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported across randomized trials of any interventions for various shoulder disorders. Methods: We searched for shoulder trials included in Cochrane reviews published up to Issue 10, 2015, or indexed in PubMed between 2006 and 2015. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they focused on any intervention for rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, shoulder instability, glenohumeral or acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, shoulder dislocation, proximal humeral or humeral head fractures, or unspecified shoulder pain. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported, with consensus discussion among all authors where required. Results: We included 409 trials, published between 1954 and 2015. Across the trials, we identified 319 different instruments that were classified into 32 domains. Most trials reported a measure of pain (90{\%}), range of motion (78{\%}), and physical function (71{\%}). The recording of adverse events was reported in only 31{\%} of the trials. Muscle strength was reported in 44{\%} of the trials and imaging outcomes in 21{\%}. Other patient-reported outcome measures, such as global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life, work ability, and psychological functioning, were each reported in ≤15{\%} of the trials. Most of the domains were reported at similar frequencies across different shoulder disorders. Conclusion: The domains and measurement instruments reported were widely diverse. Our results provide a foundation for the development of a core outcome set for use in future trials across all shoulder disorders.",
author = "Page, {Matthew J.} and Hsiaomin Huang and Verhagen, {Arianne P.} and Gagnier, {Joel J.} and Rachelle Buchbinder",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/acr.23254",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "252--259",
journal = "Arthritis Care and Research",
issn = "2151-464X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

Outcome Reporting in Randomized Trials for Shoulder Disorders : Literature Review to Inform the Development of a Core Outcome Set. / Page, Matthew J.; Huang, Hsiaomin; Verhagen, Arianne P.; Gagnier, Joel J.; Buchbinder, Rachelle.

In: Arthritis Care and Research, Vol. 70, No. 2, 01.02.2018, p. 252-259.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcome Reporting in Randomized Trials for Shoulder Disorders

T2 - Literature Review to Inform the Development of a Core Outcome Set

AU - Page, Matthew J.

AU - Huang, Hsiaomin

AU - Verhagen, Arianne P.

AU - Gagnier, Joel J.

AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Objective: To explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported across randomized trials of any interventions for various shoulder disorders. Methods: We searched for shoulder trials included in Cochrane reviews published up to Issue 10, 2015, or indexed in PubMed between 2006 and 2015. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they focused on any intervention for rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, shoulder instability, glenohumeral or acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, shoulder dislocation, proximal humeral or humeral head fractures, or unspecified shoulder pain. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported, with consensus discussion among all authors where required. Results: We included 409 trials, published between 1954 and 2015. Across the trials, we identified 319 different instruments that were classified into 32 domains. Most trials reported a measure of pain (90%), range of motion (78%), and physical function (71%). The recording of adverse events was reported in only 31% of the trials. Muscle strength was reported in 44% of the trials and imaging outcomes in 21%. Other patient-reported outcome measures, such as global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life, work ability, and psychological functioning, were each reported in ≤15% of the trials. Most of the domains were reported at similar frequencies across different shoulder disorders. Conclusion: The domains and measurement instruments reported were widely diverse. Our results provide a foundation for the development of a core outcome set for use in future trials across all shoulder disorders.

AB - Objective: To explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported across randomized trials of any interventions for various shoulder disorders. Methods: We searched for shoulder trials included in Cochrane reviews published up to Issue 10, 2015, or indexed in PubMed between 2006 and 2015. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they focused on any intervention for rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, shoulder instability, glenohumeral or acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, shoulder dislocation, proximal humeral or humeral head fractures, or unspecified shoulder pain. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported, with consensus discussion among all authors where required. Results: We included 409 trials, published between 1954 and 2015. Across the trials, we identified 319 different instruments that were classified into 32 domains. Most trials reported a measure of pain (90%), range of motion (78%), and physical function (71%). The recording of adverse events was reported in only 31% of the trials. Muscle strength was reported in 44% of the trials and imaging outcomes in 21%. Other patient-reported outcome measures, such as global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life, work ability, and psychological functioning, were each reported in ≤15% of the trials. Most of the domains were reported at similar frequencies across different shoulder disorders. Conclusion: The domains and measurement instruments reported were widely diverse. Our results provide a foundation for the development of a core outcome set for use in future trials across all shoulder disorders.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041021130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/acr.23254

DO - 10.1002/acr.23254

M3 - Article

VL - 70

SP - 252

EP - 259

JO - Arthritis Care and Research

JF - Arthritis Care and Research

SN - 2151-464X

IS - 2

ER -