Search

Objective: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a prevalent condition in China, necessitating effective assessment tools for treatment outcomes. This study systematically reviews and analyzes the reliability, validity, and selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for evaluating KOA. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was conducted across seven databases, including CNKI, PubMed, and Embase, covering publications from December 2012 to December 2022. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, involving eight types of KOA PROMs. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were the most frequently utilized, appearing in nine and four studies, respectively. OKS achieved a ''strong'' rating in internal consistency, test-retest reliability, content validity, responsiveness, and measurement error, while WOMAC received a ''strong'' rating in internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and content validity, with a ''moderate'' rating in structural validity. Conclusion: Both OKS and WOMAC are effective PROMs for evaluating KOA in China. However, the choice of a specific tool should be based on the study's objectives and the practical context, considering each tool's reliability, validity, and other measurement properties.

# Background Non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain, caused by various pathologies, leads to impairments in range of motion, strength, balance, and neuromuscular control. Although functional performance tests offer valuable insights in evaluating these patients, no clear consensus exists regarding the optimal tests for this patient population. # Purpose This study aimed to establish expert consensus on the application and selection of functional performance tests in individuals presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. # Study Design A modified Delphi technique was used with fourteen physical therapy experts, all members of the International Society for Hip Arthroscopy (ISHA). The panelists participated in three rounds of questions and related discussions to reach full consensus on the application and selection of functional performance tests. # Results The panel agreed that functional performance tests should be utilized at initial evaluation, re-evaluations, and discharge, as well as criterion for assessing readiness for returning to sports. Tests should be as part of a multimodal assessment of neuromuscular control, strength, range of motion, and balance, applied in a graded fashion depending on the patient's characteristics. Clinicians should select functional performance tests with objective scoring criteria and prioritize the use of tests with supporting psychometric evidence. A list of recommended functional performance tests with varying intensity levels is provided. Low-intensity functional performance tests encompass controlled speed in a single plane with no impact. Medium-intensity functional performance tests involve controlled speed in multiple planes with low impact. High-intensity functional performance tests include higher speeds in multiple planes with higher impact and agility requirements. Sport-specific movement tests should mimic the patient's particular activity or sport. # Conclusion This international consensus statement provides recommendations for clinicians regarding selection and utilization of functional performance tests for those with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. These recommendations will encourage greater consistency and standardization among clinicians during a physical therapy assessment.

# Background A large number of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed for specific lower extremity orthopaedic pathologies. However, a consensus as to which PROMs are recommended for use in evaluating treatment outcomes for patients with hip, knee, ankle and/or foot pathology based on the strength of their psychometric properties is lacking. # Objective To identify PROMs that are recommended in systematic reviews (SRs) for those with orthopaedic hip, knee, foot, and ankle pathologies or surgeries and identify if these PROMs are used in the literature. # Study design Umbrella Review # Methods PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDisucs and Scopus were searched for SRs through May 2022. A second search was done to count the use of PROMs in seven representative journals from January 2011 through May 2022. SRs that recommended the use of PROMs based on their psychometric properties were included in the first search. SRs or PROMs not available in the English were excluded. The second search included clinical research articles that utilized a PROM. Case reports, reviews, and basic science articles were excluded. # Results Nineteen SRs recommended 20 PROMs for 15 lower extremity orthopaedic pathologies or surgeries. These results identified consistency between recommended PROMs and utilization in clinical research for only two of the 15 lower extremity pathologies or surgeries. This included the use of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score to assess outcomes (HAGOS) for those with knee osteoarthritis and groin pain, respectively. # Conclusion A discrepancy was found between the PROMs that were recommended by SRs and those used to assess clinical outcomes in published research. The results of this study will help to produce more uniformity with the use of PROMs that have the most appropriate psychometric properties when the reporting treatment outcomes for those with extremity pathologies. # Level of evidence 3a

# Background A large number of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed in the English language for various lower extremity orthopaedic pathologies. Twenty different PROMs were recommended for 15 specific musculoskeletal lower extremity pathologies or surgeries. However, the availability of cross-culturally adapted versions of these recommended PROMs is unknown. # Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the cross-culturally adapted versions of recommended PROMs for individuals experiencing orthopedic lower extremity pathologies or undergoing surgeries, and to identify the psychometric evidence that supports their utilization. # Study design Literature Review # Methods PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDisucs and Scopus were searched for cross-culturally adapted translated studies through May 2022. The search strategy included the names of the 20 recommended PROMs from previous umbrella review along with the following terms: reliability, validity, responsiveness, psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation. Studies that presented a non-English language version of the PROM with evidence in at least one psychometric property to support its use were included. Two authors independently evaluated the studies for inclusion and independently extracted data. # Results Nineteen PROMS had cross-culturally adapted and translated language versions. The KOOS, WOMAC, ACL-RSL, FAAM, ATRS, HOOS, OHS, MOXFQ and OKS were available in over 10 different language versions. Turkish, Dutch, German, Chinese and French were the most common languages, with each language having more than 10 PROMs with psychometric properties supporting their use. The WOMAC and KOOS were both available in 10 languages and had all three psychometric properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness supporting their use. # Conclusion Nineteen of the 20 recommended instruments were available in multiple languages. The PROM most frequently cross-culturally adapted and translated were the KOOS and WOMAC. PROMs were most frequently cross-culturally adapted and translated into Turkish. International researchers and clinicians may use this information to more consistently implement PROMs with the most appropriate psychometric evidence available to support their use. # Level of evidence 3a

Background and ObjectiveThere is vast published literature proposing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) technology on the motor cortex (M1) for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). Systematic reviews (SRs) focus on a specific problem and do not provide a comprehensive overview of a research area. This study aimed to summarize and analyze the evidence of rTMS on the M1 for NP treatment through a new synthesis method called evidence mapping.MethodsSearches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and The Cochrane Library to identify the studies that summarized the effectiveness of rTMS for NP. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, was included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed by using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted following a defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions [frequency, number of sessions (short: 1–5 sessions, medium: 5–10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)] and compared. The evidence map was presented in tables and a bubble plot.ResultsA total of 38 SRs met the eligibility criteria. After duplicate primary studies were removed, these reviews included 70 primary studies that met the scope of evidence mapping. According to the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the quality of the included SRs was critically low. Of these studies, 34 SRs scored “critically low” in terms of methodological quality, 2 SR scored “low,” 1 SR scored “moderate,” and 1 SR scored “high.”ConclusionEvidence mapping is a useful methodology to provide a comprehensive and reliable overview of studies on rTMS for NP. Evidence mapping also shows that further investigations are necessary to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols and standardize all parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Given that the methodological quality of most included SRs was “critically low,” further investigations are advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.