Use of both short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire and short form-36 among tibial-fracture patients was redundant
Abstract Objective To compare the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Dysfunction Index (SMFA DI) and the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) scores among patients undergoing operative management of tibial fractures. Study Design and Setting Between July 2000 and September 200...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2009-11, Vol.62 (11), p.1210-1217 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1217 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 1210 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 62 |
| creator | Busse, Jason W Bhandari, Mohit Guyatt, Gordon H Heels-Ansdell, Diane Mandel, Scott Sanders, David Schemitsch, Emil Swiontkowski, Marc Tornetta, Paul Wai, Eugene Walter, Stephen D |
| description | Abstract Objective To compare the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Dysfunction Index (SMFA DI) and the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) scores among patients undergoing operative management of tibial fractures. Study Design and Setting Between July 2000 and September 2005, we enrolled 1,319 skeletally mature patients with open or closed fractures of the tibial shaft that were managed with intramedullary nailing. Patients were asked to complete the SMFA Questionnaire and SF-36 at discharge and 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. Results The SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were highly correlated at 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. The difference in the mean standardized change scores for SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS, from 3 to 12 months post–surgical fixation, was not statistically significant. Both the SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were able to discriminate between healed and nonhealed tibial fractures at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery. Conclusion In patients with tibial-shaft fractures, the SMFA DI offered no significant advantages over the SF-36 PCS score. These results, along with the usefulness of SF-36 for comparing populations, recommend the SF-36 for assessing physical function in studies of patients with tibial fractures. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.014 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2782578</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0895435609000511</els_id><sourcerecordid>2734582991</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c583t-bdae05742d7fece2a50218ca3de37baf42da1e23b340cc4d512486ce881b7b423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhiMEokvhL1SWEOKUxZ9xcqlAFRSkShygZ8txJl1vE3vxJEW98stxuksLvSCNZMnzzOc7RXHC6JpRVr3brrdu8AF2fs0pbdaUZZNPihWrdV2qhrOnxYrWjSqlUNVR8QJxSynTVKvnxRFrRCUroVfFr0sEEnvSxmlDcBPTRMYZ3TxEvIYBJjuQfg5u8jEQiwiII4SJ_JgBl79gfQJiQ3eI7WMaS1ERO8ZwRSbfejuUfbJumjO3s5PP0Uh-WiQJujl0Nkwvi2e9HRBeHd7j4vLTx-9nn8uLr-dfzj5clE7VYirbzgJVWvJO9-CAW0U5q50VHQjd2j47LAMuWiGpc7JTjMu6clDXrNWt5OK4ON3n3c3tCJ3LnSQ7mF3yo023Jlpv_vUEvzFX8cZwXXOl65zg7SFBincLMKNHB8NgA8QZjc6VK0WpyOTrR-Q2zink6QzLbtYoVjWZqvaUSxExQX_fC6NmUdlszR-VzaKyoSybzIEnf0_yEHaQNQNvDoBFZ4csQHAe7znOKZdcLn2-33OQ937jIRl0WSEHXZbVTaaL_v-9nD5KsVA-V72GW8CHuQ1yQ8235SaXk6QNpVQxJn4DlUviNA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1033195169</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Use of both short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire and short form-36 among tibial-fracture patients was redundant</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Busse, Jason W ; Bhandari, Mohit ; Guyatt, Gordon H ; Heels-Ansdell, Diane ; Mandel, Scott ; Sanders, David ; Schemitsch, Emil ; Swiontkowski, Marc ; Tornetta, Paul ; Wai, Eugene ; Walter, Stephen D</creator><creatorcontrib>Busse, Jason W ; Bhandari, Mohit ; Guyatt, Gordon H ; Heels-Ansdell, Diane ; Mandel, Scott ; Sanders, David ; Schemitsch, Emil ; Swiontkowski, Marc ; Tornetta, Paul ; Wai, Eugene ; Walter, Stephen D ; The SPRINT Investigators ; SPRINT Investigators</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objective To compare the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Dysfunction Index (SMFA DI) and the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) scores among patients undergoing operative management of tibial fractures. Study Design and Setting Between July 2000 and September 2005, we enrolled 1,319 skeletally mature patients with open or closed fractures of the tibial shaft that were managed with intramedullary nailing. Patients were asked to complete the SMFA Questionnaire and SF-36 at discharge and 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. Results The SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were highly correlated at 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. The difference in the mean standardized change scores for SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS, from 3 to 12 months post–surgical fixation, was not statistically significant. Both the SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were able to discriminate between healed and nonhealed tibial fractures at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery. Conclusion In patients with tibial-shaft fractures, the SMFA DI offered no significant advantages over the SF-36 PCS score. These results, along with the usefulness of SF-36 for comparing populations, recommend the SF-36 for assessing physical function in studies of patients with tibial fractures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.014</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19364637</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Fracture ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - rehabilitation ; Fracture Healing ; Fractures, Closed - physiopathology ; Fractures, Closed - surgery ; Fractures, Open - physiopathology ; Fractures, Open - surgery ; Fractures, Ununited - diagnosis ; Health Status Indicators ; Humans ; Injuries of the limb. Injuries of the spine ; Internal Medicine ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Open fractures ; Quality of Life ; Randomized controlled trial ; Recovery of Function ; Short Form-36 ; Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire ; Tibia ; Tibial Fractures - physiopathology ; Tibial Fractures - surgery ; Trauma ; Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2009-11, Vol.62 (11), p.1210-1217</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2009 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c583t-bdae05742d7fece2a50218ca3de37baf42da1e23b340cc4d512486ce881b7b423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c583t-bdae05742d7fece2a50218ca3de37baf42da1e23b340cc4d512486ce881b7b423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1033195169?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,782,786,887,3552,27931,27932,46002,64392,64394,64396,72476</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22024243$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364637$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Busse, Jason W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhandari, Mohit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guyatt, Gordon H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heels-Ansdell, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mandel, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schemitsch, Emil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swiontkowski, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tornetta, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wai, Eugene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walter, Stephen D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>The SPRINT Investigators</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SPRINT Investigators</creatorcontrib><title>Use of both short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire and short form-36 among tibial-fracture patients was redundant</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Abstract Objective To compare the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Dysfunction Index (SMFA DI) and the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) scores among patients undergoing operative management of tibial fractures. Study Design and Setting Between July 2000 and September 2005, we enrolled 1,319 skeletally mature patients with open or closed fractures of the tibial shaft that were managed with intramedullary nailing. Patients were asked to complete the SMFA Questionnaire and SF-36 at discharge and 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. Results The SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were highly correlated at 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. The difference in the mean standardized change scores for SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS, from 3 to 12 months post–surgical fixation, was not statistically significant. Both the SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were able to discriminate between healed and nonhealed tibial fractures at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery. Conclusion In patients with tibial-shaft fractures, the SMFA DI offered no significant advantages over the SF-36 PCS score. These results, along with the usefulness of SF-36 for comparing populations, recommend the SF-36 for assessing physical function in studies of patients with tibial fractures.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Fracture</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Fracture Healing</subject><subject>Fractures, Closed - physiopathology</subject><subject>Fractures, Closed - surgery</subject><subject>Fractures, Open - physiopathology</subject><subject>Fractures, Open - surgery</subject><subject>Fractures, Ununited - diagnosis</subject><subject>Health Status Indicators</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injuries of the limb. Injuries of the spine</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Open fractures</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Randomized controlled trial</subject><subject>Recovery of Function</subject><subject>Short Form-36</subject><subject>Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire</subject><subject>Tibia</subject><subject>Tibial Fractures - physiopathology</subject><subject>Tibial Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><subject>Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhiMEokvhL1SWEOKUxZ9xcqlAFRSkShygZ8txJl1vE3vxJEW98stxuksLvSCNZMnzzOc7RXHC6JpRVr3brrdu8AF2fs0pbdaUZZNPihWrdV2qhrOnxYrWjSqlUNVR8QJxSynTVKvnxRFrRCUroVfFr0sEEnvSxmlDcBPTRMYZ3TxEvIYBJjuQfg5u8jEQiwiII4SJ_JgBl79gfQJiQ3eI7WMaS1ERO8ZwRSbfejuUfbJumjO3s5PP0Uh-WiQJujl0Nkwvi2e9HRBeHd7j4vLTx-9nn8uLr-dfzj5clE7VYirbzgJVWvJO9-CAW0U5q50VHQjd2j47LAMuWiGpc7JTjMu6clDXrNWt5OK4ON3n3c3tCJ3LnSQ7mF3yo023Jlpv_vUEvzFX8cZwXXOl65zg7SFBincLMKNHB8NgA8QZjc6VK0WpyOTrR-Q2zink6QzLbtYoVjWZqvaUSxExQX_fC6NmUdlszR-VzaKyoSybzIEnf0_yEHaQNQNvDoBFZ4csQHAe7znOKZdcLn2-33OQ937jIRl0WSEHXZbVTaaL_v-9nD5KsVA-V72GW8CHuQ1yQ8235SaXk6QNpVQxJn4DlUviNA</recordid><startdate>20091101</startdate><enddate>20091101</enddate><creator>Busse, Jason W</creator><creator>Bhandari, Mohit</creator><creator>Guyatt, Gordon H</creator><creator>Heels-Ansdell, Diane</creator><creator>Mandel, Scott</creator><creator>Sanders, David</creator><creator>Schemitsch, Emil</creator><creator>Swiontkowski, Marc</creator><creator>Tornetta, Paul</creator><creator>Wai, Eugene</creator><creator>Walter, Stephen D</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091101</creationdate><title>Use of both short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire and short form-36 among tibial-fracture patients was redundant</title><author>Busse, Jason W ; Bhandari, Mohit ; Guyatt, Gordon H ; Heels-Ansdell, Diane ; Mandel, Scott ; Sanders, David ; Schemitsch, Emil ; Swiontkowski, Marc ; Tornetta, Paul ; Wai, Eugene ; Walter, Stephen D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c583t-bdae05742d7fece2a50218ca3de37baf42da1e23b340cc4d512486ce881b7b423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Fracture</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Fracture Healing</topic><topic>Fractures, Closed - physiopathology</topic><topic>Fractures, Closed - surgery</topic><topic>Fractures, Open - physiopathology</topic><topic>Fractures, Open - surgery</topic><topic>Fractures, Ununited - diagnosis</topic><topic>Health Status Indicators</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injuries of the limb. Injuries of the spine</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Open fractures</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Randomized controlled trial</topic><topic>Recovery of Function</topic><topic>Short Form-36</topic><topic>Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire</topic><topic>Tibia</topic><topic>Tibial Fractures - physiopathology</topic><topic>Tibial Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><topic>Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Busse, Jason W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhandari, Mohit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guyatt, Gordon H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heels-Ansdell, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mandel, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanders, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schemitsch, Emil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swiontkowski, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tornetta, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wai, Eugene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walter, Stephen D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>The SPRINT Investigators</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SPRINT Investigators</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Busse, Jason W</au><au>Bhandari, Mohit</au><au>Guyatt, Gordon H</au><au>Heels-Ansdell, Diane</au><au>Mandel, Scott</au><au>Sanders, David</au><au>Schemitsch, Emil</au><au>Swiontkowski, Marc</au><au>Tornetta, Paul</au><au>Wai, Eugene</au><au>Walter, Stephen D</au><aucorp>The SPRINT Investigators</aucorp><aucorp>SPRINT Investigators</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Use of both short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire and short form-36 among tibial-fracture patients was redundant</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2009-11-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1210</spage><epage>1217</epage><pages>1210-1217</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objective To compare the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Dysfunction Index (SMFA DI) and the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) scores among patients undergoing operative management of tibial fractures. Study Design and Setting Between July 2000 and September 2005, we enrolled 1,319 skeletally mature patients with open or closed fractures of the tibial shaft that were managed with intramedullary nailing. Patients were asked to complete the SMFA Questionnaire and SF-36 at discharge and 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. Results The SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were highly correlated at 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. The difference in the mean standardized change scores for SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS, from 3 to 12 months post–surgical fixation, was not statistically significant. Both the SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were able to discriminate between healed and nonhealed tibial fractures at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery. Conclusion In patients with tibial-shaft fractures, the SMFA DI offered no significant advantages over the SF-36 PCS score. These results, along with the usefulness of SF-36 for comparing populations, recommend the SF-36 for assessing physical function in studies of patients with tibial fractures.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>19364637</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.014</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2009-11, Vol.62 (11), p.1210-1217 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2782578 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Epidemiology Female Follow-Up Studies Fracture Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - rehabilitation Fracture Healing Fractures, Closed - physiopathology Fractures, Closed - surgery Fractures, Open - physiopathology Fractures, Open - surgery Fractures, Ununited - diagnosis Health Status Indicators Humans Injuries of the limb. Injuries of the spine Internal Medicine Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Open fractures Quality of Life Randomized controlled trial Recovery of Function Short Form-36 Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire Tibia Tibial Fractures - physiopathology Tibial Fractures - surgery Trauma Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents Treatment Outcome Young Adult |
| title | Use of both short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire and short form-36 among tibial-fracture patients was redundant |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T08%3A45%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Use%20of%20both%20short%20musculoskeletal%20function%20assessment%20questionnaire%20and%20short%20form-36%20among%20tibial-fracture%20patients%20was%20redundant&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Busse,%20Jason%20W&rft.aucorp=The%20SPRINT%20Investigators&rft.date=2009-11-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1210&rft.epage=1217&rft.pages=1210-1217&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.014&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2734582991%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1033195169&rft_id=info:pmid/19364637&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0895435609000511&rfr_iscdi=true |