Outcome reporting in elbow arthritis: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundDegenerative disease of the elbow is a unique dilemma due to the different pathologies of arthritis. Outcome measures are used by physicians to provide a quantitative measure of patient progression. While there has been a substantial number of case series and studies on treatment of elbow arthritis, the heterogeneity of outcome measures reported in the literature makes it difficult for surgeons to compare results between treatment options. There is no consensus on outcome measure reporting as no measure has been found to be superior to others in the literature. The purpose of this study was to examine the elbow arthritis literature for the most commonly reported outcomes measures after treatment of elbow arthritis and recommend a guideline for reporting in future studies in an attempt to standardize the literature. MethodsA query was performed of all studies written in English literature from 2010 to 2020 using PubMed and Scopus databases utilizing PRISMA guidelines. Articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed for reporting of patient-reported outcome, range of motion, return to work/sport, complication rate, satisfaction rate, revision rate, number of patients, minimum and mean follow-up time, type of treatment, journal, journal impact factor, level of evidence, and number of citations as of April 2020. ResultsEighty three studies met inclusion criteria with a mean number of 39 patients per study with a mean age of 53 years. Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) was the most commonly reported outcome measure (81%) followed by quick Disabilities of Arm Shoulder Hand (qDASH; 23%), DASH (16%), and modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (m-ASES; 16%). The average number of outcome measures per study was 1.6. Studies that reported MEPS had higher number of citations compared to studies that did not (14.21 vs. 7.62 citations; P = .031). Studies that reported MEPS were found to publish more in journals with higher impact factors (ie, impact factor of ≥2) (88% vs. 71%; P = .051). DiscussionOutcome measures are inconsistently reported in elbow arthritis literature. Studies that report MEPS were found to be cited more. We recommend reporting of at least two outcome measures in future studies as well as range of motion for easier cross-study analysis. Additional measures such as return to work/sport, satisfaction rate, complication rate, and revision rate should be reported to provide more complete understanding of post-treatment outcome. ConclusionIncreased standardization of outcome measure reporting may improve future patients’ outcomes following treatment of elbow arthritis. Levels of EvidenceLevel IV