The Reporting of Functional Outcome Instruments in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma Over a 5-Year Period

Abstract

Orthopaedic journals, such as the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, frequently publish studies reporting functional outcome instruments, but little information has been provided regarding the validity and overall strength of these instruments. This study analyzes the trends in reported functional outcome instruments in articles published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma over a 5-year period and examines the utilization rate, "overall" strength, and validity of these functional outcome instruments for the populations being studied. Articles that were published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma from January 2006 to December 2010 were reviewed, and each article was assigned to 1 of 4 different categories, based on the subspecialty focus and body region. The total number of articles reporting the use of functional outcome instruments, articles with at least 1 functional outcome instrument found in the AO Handbook, and the total number of functional outcome instruments reported were recorded. Each functional outcome instrument was assigned to 1 of 3 categories (generic, nonvalidated, validated), and each validated instrument was also examined to determine whether the category of interest for which it was used was one in which it was previously validated in. A total of 171 articles (34%) of the articles initially reviewed met the inclusion criteria. The average number of articles per year that reported functional outcome instruments was 56% (range, 47%-65%), and the average number of articles that reported at least 1 validated outcome instrument was 51% (range, 44%-61%). The average percentage of validated scores that were appropriately used within the category of interest was 23% (range, 13%-41%). Even though the 56% utilization rate of functional outcome instruments in The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is much higher than other journals, it is still low given the importance of measuring and attaining excellent functional outcomes. It is clear that future effort should be given to validating outcome measures for correct evaluation of orthopaedic trauma patients.