A systematic review identifying outcome measures used in evaluating adults sustaining cervical spine fractures
- PMID: 36063214
- DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07369-7
A systematic review identifying outcome measures used in evaluating adults sustaining cervical spine fractures
Abstract
Objective: To assess the outcome measures used in studies investigating cervical spine fractures in adults, with or without associated spinal cord injury, to inform development of a core outcome set.
Methods: Medline, Embase and Scopus were searched for relevant studies until May 28, 2022, without a historic limit on study date. Study characteristics, population characteristics and outcomes reported were extracted and analyzed.
Results: Our literature search identified 536 studies that met criteria for inclusion, involving 393,266 patients. Most studies were single center (87.3%), retrospective studies (88.9%) and involved a median of 40 patients (range 6-167,278). Treatments assessed included: surgery (55.2%), conservative (6.2%), halo immobilization (4.9%), or a mixture (33.2%). Median study duration was 84 months (range 3-564 months); the timing of clinical and/or radiological follow-up assessment after injury was reported in 56.7%. There was significant heterogeneity in outcomes used, with 79 different reported outcomes measures. Differences in use were identified between smaller/larger, retro-/prospective and single/multicenter cohorts. Over time, the use of radiological outcomes has declined with greater emphasis on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Studies of conservative management were more likely to detail PROMs and mortality, whereas surgical studies reported Frankel/ASIA grade, radiological fusion, complication rates, duration of hospital stay and re-operation rates more frequently. In studies assessing the elderly population (> 65 years), use of PROMs, mortality, hospital stay and discharge destination were more common, whereas fusion was reported less often. Response rates for outcome assessments were lower in studies assessing elderly patients, and studies using PROMs.
Conclusions: We have classified the various outcome measures used for patients with cervical spine fractures based on the COMET outcome taxonomy. We also described the contexts in which different outcomes are more commonly employed to help guide decision-making when designing future research endeavors.
Keywords: Cervical spine; Core outcome set; Fracture; Outcomes; Spine surgery; Systematic literature review.
© 2022. Crown.
References
-
- Passias PG, Poorman GW, Segreto FA et al (2018) Traumatic fractures of the cervical spine: analysis of changes in incidence, cause, concurrent injuries, and complications among 488,262 patients from 2005 to 2013. World Neurosurg 110:e427–e437 - DOI
-
- Fredo HL, Rizvi SA, Lied B, Ronning P, Helseth E (2012) The epidemiology of traumatic cervical spine fractures: a prospective population study from Norway. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 20:85 - DOI
-
- McDaid D, Park AL, Gall A, Purcell M, Bacon M (2019) Understanding and modelling the economic impact of spinal cord injuries in the United Kingdom. Spinal Cord 57(9):778–788 - DOI
-
- Merritt CH, Taylor MA, Yelton CJ, Ray SK (2019) Economic impact of traumatic spinal cord injuries in the United States. Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. https://doi.org/10.20517/2347-8659.2019.15 - DOI
-
- Baxter J, Lisk R, Osmani A et al (2021) Clinical outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with cervical spine fractures or with hip fractures. Intern Emerg Med 16(5):1207–1213 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous