Comparative Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Proximal Hamstring Injuries: A Systematic Review. Issue 7 (22nd July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Green, Joshua S.; Moran, Jay; Schneble, Christopher A.; Zazulak, Bohdanna; Li, Don T.; Jimenez, Andrew; Medvecky, Michael J.
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 10:Issue 7(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-07-22
• Subjects: proximal hamstring injury -- hamstring avulsion -- hamstring rupture -- hamstring tear -- proximal hamstring repair -- patient-reported outcomes -- questionnaires; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/23259671221104758
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: There is controversy regarding which patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be used for proximal hamstring tendon injuries. Hypothesis: It was hypothesized that (1) most (>50%) of the questions on the 13 most common PROMs for proximal hamstring injuries would demonstrate extensive overlap in the health domains and question categories and (2) each of the PROMs would contain a variable distribution of questions within each health domain. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: We conducted a literature review through PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL and identified the 13 most common PROMs for proximal hamstring injuries: Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Marx activity rating scale (MARS), 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12), Tegner activity scale (TAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT), Proximal Hamstring Injury Questionnaire (PHIQ), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), University of California, Los Angeles activity score (UCLA), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), Sydney Hamstring Origin Rupture Evaluation (SHORE), and Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS). All PROM questions were sorted into 5 health domains (pain, symptoms, activities of daily living, sports, and mindset) and further divided into question categories if they referred to similar tasks or aspects of health. Questions in the same health domain and question category were considered overlapping, and those within a health domain that did not fit into a question category were considered unique. For each PROM, we analyzed the distribution of questions within particular health domains and question categories as well as the amount of overlapping and unique questions. Results: Of the 165 questions evaluated, 116 (70.3%) were overlapping, and 49 (29.7%) were unique. The SF-12 contained the most unique questions (9/12 [75.0%]). The MARS, TAS, SANE, and UCLA had 0 unique questions. The PHIQ and iHOT-12 contained questions in all 5 health domains. The PHAT, SHORE, and NAHS contained questions in every health domain except mindset. The LEFS, MARS, SF-12, TAS, mHHS, SANE, UCLA, and HOS contained questions in ≤3 health domains. Conclusion: The evaluated PROMs had a high degree of overlapping questions (≥50%) and demonstrated a statistically significant variance in the distribution of questions within each health domain.