This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Study: Too many unique ICF categories seen for consensus on outcome assessment in spine trauma
Researchers found evidence in a systematic literature search to support a hypothesis that there is no consensus on outcome assessment in spine trauma research and there is no outcome instrument designed for this specific patient population.
Researchers conducted a systematic literature search of several databases and extracted outcome measures from included studies. Out of 5,117 screened references, 245 were included and 17 different frequently used outcome measures were identified. Researchers linked meaningful concepts of the items and response options of the outcome measures to 105 different International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) categories.
Researchers linked the ICF categories to the components of activities and participation (31), body functions (17), environment factors (eight) and body structures (one). However, they found limited evidence on the measurement properties, except for disease-specific questionnaires, such as the Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index and Cervical Spine Outcome Questionnaire.
“These results support the hypothesis that there is no consensus on outcome assessment in spine trauma research, and that there is no outcome instrument designed or validated for this specific patient population. Together with the findings of the other preparatory studies, this study creates an evidence base for a consensus meeting during which a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in spine trauma will be decided,” researchers wrote in the study. – by Robert Linnehan
Disclosure: Researchers report receipt of AO Spine funds in support of this work.