IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0157263.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reported Outcome Measures in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin M Davies
  • Maire McHugh
  • Ali Elgheriani
  • Angelos G Kolias
  • Lindsay A Tetreault
  • Peter J A Hutchinson
  • Michael G Fehlings
  • Mark R N Kotter

Abstract

Objective: Degenerative cervical myelopathy [DCM] is a disabling and increasingly prevalent group of diseases. Heterogeneous reporting of trial outcomes limits effective inter-study comparison and optimisation of treatment. This is recognised in many fields of healthcare research. The present study aims to assess the heterogeneity of outcome reporting in DCM as the premise for the development of a standardised reporting set. Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015025497) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Full text articles in English, with >50 patients (prospective) or >200 patients (retrospective), reporting outcomes of DCM were eligible. Results: 108 studies, assessing 23,876 patients, conducted world-wide, were identified. Reported outcome themes included function (reported by 97, 90% of studies), complications (reported by 56, 52% of studies), quality of life (reported by 31, 29% of studies), pain (reported by 29, 27% of studies) and imaging (reported by 59, 55% of studies). Only 7 (6%) studies considered all of domains in a single publication. All domains showed variability in reporting. Conclusions: Significant heterogeneity exists in the reporting of outcomes in DCM. The development of a consensus minimum dataset will facilitate future research synthesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin M Davies & Maire McHugh & Ali Elgheriani & Angelos G Kolias & Lindsay A Tetreault & Peter J A Hutchinson & Michael G Fehlings & Mark R N Kotter, 2016. "Reported Outcome Measures in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0157263
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157263
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157263&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0157263?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0157263. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.