Scholarlink

<p>Clinical outcome assessment (COA) in joint surgery ensures that surgical interventions are planned, performed and followed-up in an evidence-based manner over the complete course of treatment. The core elements of modern clinical assessment of results encompass patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) also including radiological outcome parameters and performance-based outcomes (PerfOs). Quality criteria of the clinical assessment instruments and established relevance thresholds, e.g., minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), are elucidated in this review article as the foundation for the application and interpretation of COA. Whereas generic and joint-specific PROMs (e.g., EQ-5D, KOOS, FJS-12) reflect the patient-centered quality of life, the methodological limitations, such as the response shift, are subjected to a&#xa0;pronounced placebo effect or ceiling effects. In compensation, objective procedures from instrumented (iPerfO) to digital (dPerfO) wearable technologies, are gaining in importance in order to make an unbiased quantification of biomechanical functions; however, the valid interpretation of these results requires a mandatory statistical risk adjustment taking preoperative baseline values, medical and psychosocial confounders into account. A&#xa0;rigorously applied methodological approach is nowadays essential to reliably evaluate the quality of surgery and the true success of treatment.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Clinical Outcome Assessment in der Kniechirurgie

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月14日

查看全文
  • Felix Riechelmann,
  • Alexa Schaufler,
  • Wolfgang Hackl

摘要

Clinical outcome assessment (COA) in joint surgery ensures that surgical interventions are planned, performed and followed-up in an evidence-based manner over the complete course of treatment. The core elements of modern clinical assessment of results encompass patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) also including radiological outcome parameters and performance-based outcomes (PerfOs). Quality criteria of the clinical assessment instruments and established relevance thresholds, e.g., minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), are elucidated in this review article as the foundation for the application and interpretation of COA. Whereas generic and joint-specific PROMs (e.g., EQ-5D, KOOS, FJS-12) reflect the patient-centered quality of life, the methodological limitations, such as the response shift, are subjected to a pronounced placebo effect or ceiling effects. In compensation, objective procedures from instrumented (iPerfO) to digital (dPerfO) wearable technologies, are gaining in importance in order to make an unbiased quantification of biomechanical functions; however, the valid interpretation of these results requires a mandatory statistical risk adjustment taking preoperative baseline values, medical and psychosocial confounders into account. A rigorously applied methodological approach is nowadays essential to reliably evaluate the quality of surgery and the true success of treatment.