Scholarlink

Background <p>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential for evaluating symptoms, function, psychological readiness, and quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R). Despite their broad use, PROMs differ considerably in what they measure and how well they perform. This comprehensive review summarizes evidence for the most commonly used PROMs in ACL-R and provides guidance on selecting instruments that best match a given domain of interest.</p> Methods <p>A targeted PubMed search (January 2000–October 2025), complemented by manual screening of references, identified studies reporting psychometric properties of ACL-related PROMs. Extracted data included internal consistency, test–retest reliability, SEM/MDC, MCID, responsiveness, ceiling/floor effects, patient burden, cross-cultural validation, and conceptual domains.</p> Results <p>PROMs varied widely in scope and measurement quality. ACL-QOL consistently demonstrated excellent reliability and is well suited for ACL-specific quality-of-life assessments. ACL-RSI is the most robust tool for psychological readiness to return to sport. IKDC and KOOS showed strong reliability for general knee symptoms and function, with KOOS offering broader subscale coverage. KOS-ADLS performed well for activities of daily living, while VAS provided a reliable single-domain pain measurement. WOMAC showed strong psychometrics in osteoarthritis but limited relevance in younger athletic populations. Brief tools such as SANE, EQ-5D, and the Tegner scale offer rapid global assessment but lack depth. Several instruments showed ceiling or floor effects depending on recovery stage and activity level.</p> Conclusion <p>No single PROM captures all dimensions relevant after ACL-R. Domain-driven selection—such as ACL-QOL for QoL, ACL-RSI for psychological factors, IKDC/KOOS for function, or VAS for pain—ensures meaningful assessment. Considering measurement precision (SEM/MDC/MCID) and adhering to COSMIN principles can improve the comparability and clinical utility of ACL outcomes research.</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

Which PROM Should Be Used to Address the Right Domain of Interest After ACL-R: A Comprehensive Review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月13日

查看全文
  • Jonathan Lettner,
  • Niklas Drews,
  • Mikhail Salzmann,
  • Nikolai Ramadanov,
  • Robert Prill

摘要

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential for evaluating symptoms, function, psychological readiness, and quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R). Despite their broad use, PROMs differ considerably in what they measure and how well they perform. This comprehensive review summarizes evidence for the most commonly used PROMs in ACL-R and provides guidance on selecting instruments that best match a given domain of interest.

Methods

A targeted PubMed search (January 2000–October 2025), complemented by manual screening of references, identified studies reporting psychometric properties of ACL-related PROMs. Extracted data included internal consistency, test–retest reliability, SEM/MDC, MCID, responsiveness, ceiling/floor effects, patient burden, cross-cultural validation, and conceptual domains.

Results

PROMs varied widely in scope and measurement quality. ACL-QOL consistently demonstrated excellent reliability and is well suited for ACL-specific quality-of-life assessments. ACL-RSI is the most robust tool for psychological readiness to return to sport. IKDC and KOOS showed strong reliability for general knee symptoms and function, with KOOS offering broader subscale coverage. KOS-ADLS performed well for activities of daily living, while VAS provided a reliable single-domain pain measurement. WOMAC showed strong psychometrics in osteoarthritis but limited relevance in younger athletic populations. Brief tools such as SANE, EQ-5D, and the Tegner scale offer rapid global assessment but lack depth. Several instruments showed ceiling or floor effects depending on recovery stage and activity level.

Conclusion

No single PROM captures all dimensions relevant after ACL-R. Domain-driven selection—such as ACL-QOL for QoL, ACL-RSI for psychological factors, IKDC/KOOS for function, or VAS for pain—ensures meaningful assessment. Considering measurement precision (SEM/MDC/MCID) and adhering to COSMIN principles can improve the comparability and clinical utility of ACL outcomes research.