首页> 外文期刊>Arthroscopy: the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association >International Knee Documentation Committee Knee Survey Use After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 2005-2012 Systematic Review and World Region Comparison
【24h】

International Knee Documentation Committee Knee Survey Use After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 2005-2012 Systematic Review and World Region Comparison

机译:国际膝关节委员会膝关节调查使用前十字架韧带重建:2005-2012系统审查和世界地区比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to evaluate International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) survey use after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared with other surveys and determine evidence levels and methodologic study quality by world region. Methods: The Medline database was searched from January 2005 through December 2012. Results: We identified 421 studies and 33 surveys. Europe and Australia had more objective and subjective IKDC form use (chi(2) = 9.6, P = .047). Europe and Asia had more objective IKDC form use (chi(2) = 19.4, P = .001). Asia had more Lysholm knee scale use (chi(2) = 29.9, P <.0001). Europe had more Tegner Activity Level scale (chi(2) = 31.7, P <.0001) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (chi(2) = 20.5, P <.0001) use. North America and Australia had more Cincinnati or Noyes knee rating scale use (chi(2) = 21, P <.0001). Asia and Australia had more studies with greater than 60 subjects (chi(2) = 24.4, P = .018). Europe had more studies with greater than 24 months' follow-up (chi(2) = 18.4, P = .018). Asia had more studies with adequate surgical descriptions (chi(2) = 33.2, P <.0001). North America had more studies with well-described rehabilitation (chi(2) = 18.2, P = .02). Europe had more studies with confirmed recruitment (chi(2) = 12.9, P = .012). Australia and North America had more studies with confirmed independent investigators (chi(2) = 11.1, P = .026). Europe had more studies with greater than 80% recruitment (chi(2) = 16.0, P = .04). Methodologically stronger studies used the objective IKDC survey (P <.0001), the objective and subjective IKDC survey (P = .002), or the Cincinnati or Noyes scale (P = .002). This group also made greater use of the Tegner scale (P = .013). Conclusions: Objective and subjective IKDC form use is comparable with Lysholm and Tegner scale use. Objective and subjective IKDC form use in combination with the Tegner Activity Level scale is recommended.
机译:目的:本评价的目的是评估国际膝关节文件(IKDC)调查使用后,与其他调查相比,与其他调查相比,并确定世界地区的证据水平和方法学研究质量。方法:从2005年1月到2012年12月搜索了Medline数据库。结果:我们确定了421项研究和33调查。欧洲和澳大利亚有更多的客观和主观的IKDC形式使用(Chi(2)= 9.6,p = .047)。欧洲和亚洲有更多客观的IKDC形式使用(Chi(2)= 19.4,p = .001)。亚洲有更多的Lysholm膝关节尺度使用(Chi(2)= 29.9,p <.0001)。欧洲有更多的Tegner活动水平秤(Chi(2)= 31.7,p <.0001)和膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果得分(Chi(2)= 20.5,p <.0001)使用。北美和澳大利亚有更多的辛辛那提或Noyes膝关节级别使用(Chi(2)= 21,P <.0001)。亚洲和澳大利亚有更多的研究,大于60名受试者(Chi(2)= 24.4,p = .018)。欧洲有更多的研究,超过24个月后续随访(Chi(2)= 18.4,p = .018)。亚洲有足够的外科描述有更多的研究(Chi(2)= 33.2,P <.0001)。北美有更多的研究,康复良好的康复(Chi(2)= 18.2,p = .02)。欧洲有更多的研究,确认招聘(Chi(2)= 12.9,p = .012)。澳大利亚和北美与确认的独立调查人员有更多的研究(Chi(2)= 11.1,p = .026)。欧洲有更多的研究招聘大于80%(CHI(2)= 16.0,P = .04)。方法论上更强的研究使用目标IKDC调查(P <.0001),目标和主观IKDC调查(P = .002),或辛辛那提或Noyes Scale(P = .002)。该组还更加使用TEGNER秤(P = .013)。结论:目标和主观IKDC表格使用与Lysholm和Tegner秤使用相当。建议使用主体IKDC表格与TEGNER活动水平秤结合使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号