Search

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: This scoping review aimed to explore symptom clusters (SCs) in patients with lung cancer and how included symptoms and symptom dimensions are measured. LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed®, CINAHL®, Scopus®, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published until December 31, 2021. Fifty- three articles were included. DATA EVALUATION: Data extracted included descriptive items and SC constellations. Patient-reported outcome instruments and measured symptom dimensions were described according to the middle-range theory of unpleasant symptoms. SYNTHESIS: 13 articles investigated SCs a priori and 40 de novo. Thirty-six instruments were used, mostly measuring intensity alone or in combination with timing. Qualitative articles (n = 6) provided rich descriptions within the distress, timing, and quality dimensions. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Fatigue was the symptom found to most frequently co-occur with other symptoms in SCs. Fatigue, psychological symptoms, and nutritional aspects are emphasized as important areas for oncology nursing practice and further research to improve SC management for patients with lung cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background/purpose Lack of robust, feasible, and quantitative outcomes impedes Raynaud phenomenon (RP) clinical trials in systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients. Hyperspectral imaging (HSI) non-invasively measures oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin (oxyHb and deoxyHb) concentrations and oxygen saturation (O2 sat) in the skin and depicts data as oxygenation heatmaps. This study explored the potential role of HSI in quantifying SSc-RP disease severity and activity. Methods Patients with SSc-RP (n = 13) and healthy control participants (HC; n = 12) were prospectively recruited in the clinic setting. Using a hand-held camera, bilateral hand HSI (HyperMed™, Waltham, MA) was performed in a temperature-controlled room (22 °C). OxyHb, deoxyHb, and O2 sat values were calculated for 78-mm2 regions of interest for the ventral fingertips and palm (for normalization). Subjects underwent a cold provocation challenge (gloved hand submersion in 15 °C water bath for 1 min), and repeated HSI was performed at 0, 10, and 20 min. Patients completed two patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments: the Raynaud Condition Score (RCS) and the Cochin Hand Function Scale (CHFS) for symptom burden assessment. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test and a mixed effects model (Stata, College Station, TX). Results Ninety-two percent of participants were women in their 40s. For SSc-RP patients, 69% had limited cutaneous SSc, the mean ± SD SSc duration was 11 ± 5 years, and 38% had prior digital ulcers—none currently. Baseline deoxyHb was higher, and O2 sat was lower, in SSc patients versus HC (p < 0.05). SSc patients had a greater decline in oxyHb and O2 sat from baseline to time 0 (after cold challenge) with distinct rewarming oxyHb, O2 sat, and deoxyHb trajectories versus HCs (p < 0.01). There were no significant correlations between oxyHb, deoxyHb, and O2 sat level changes following cold challenge and RCS or CHFS scores. Conclusion Hyperspectral imaging is a feasible approach for SSc-RP quantification in the clinic setting. The RCS and CHFS values did not correlate with HSI parameters. Our data suggest that HSI technology for the assessment of SSc-RP at baseline and in response to cold provocation is a potential quantitative measure for SSc-RP severity and activity, though longitudinal studies that assess sensitivity to change are needed.

After traumatic brain injury (TBI), individuals may experience short- or long-term health burdens, often referred to as post-concussion symptoms (PCS). The Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) is one of the commonly used instruments to assess self-reported PCS. To date, no reference values for RPQ have been provided, although they are crucial for clinical practice when evaluating a patient's health status relative to a comparable healthy population. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide reference values for the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy. A total of 11,759 individuals (50.3% women) from representative general population samples participated in an online survey (4646 individuals from the UK, 3564 from the Netherlands, and 3549 from Italy). The factorial structure of the RPQ was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and results from the general population samples were compared with those from respective TBI samples recruited within the international CENTER-TBI study using multigroup CFA. Reference values were stratified by sex, health status, age, and education using percentiles. The three-factorial model outperformed the one-factorial structure. The general population samples were largely comparable to the corresponding TBI samples, except for items such as dizziness, vision, and sensory sensitivity, which can be considered more TBI-specific. Because of the significant differences between the general population samples, we provided reference values for the total score and for the somatic, emotional, and cognitive scales for each country separately. The reference values provided can now be used in clinical practice and research. Future studies should obtain stratified reference values for other countries and languages to improve accuracy in the diagnosis and treatment of symptom burden after TBI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the factor structure and validity of the Quick-FAAM in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI) and those classified as ankle sprain copers (ASC). Cross-sectional. Laboratory. Adult participants were included in both groups based on previously established criteria. The 12-item Quick-FAAM is scored on a 5-point Likert scale were scores are converted to a percentage (0–100%), and greater scores indicate greater function. The Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) is a 9-item scale used to assess impairments in individuals with a history of ankle sprain. Scores range from 0 to 30, and greater scores indicate greater impairment levels. Confirmatory factory analyses, internal consistency, and concurrent validity were determined. Known-groups validity and differences in scores between groups were examined. Alpha was set at p < 0.05. The instruments were strongly correlated (r = 0.76, p < 0.001), the Quick-FAAM internal consistency remained high (α = 0.94) and the single factor was confirmed. The cutoff score differentiating between the groups was 94.79%. The Quick-FAAM is a valid, shortened version of the FAAM. It also has the ability to discriminate between individuals with CAI and those classified as ASC. The Quick-FAAM should be considered for future use with individuals who have ankle sprain history. • The single factor Quick-FAAM was confirmed. • Quick-FAAM scores differed between those with CAI and ASC. • The Quick-FAAM can discriminate between those with CAI and ASC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Erectile function, libido, and sexual bother are incompletely correlated: a man may or may not be satisfied for a given level of erectile function; similarly, 2 men may have the same erectile function and different levels of sexual desire. To explore the relationship between erectile function, sexual satisfaction and sexual desire. We examined the Spearman correlation among erectile function (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-6]), sexual desire, and sexual bother in 3,944 questionnaires completed by patients after radical prostatectomy as part of routine care. IIEF-6 scores were adjusted if a patient indicated that the reason for not having intercourse was other than lack of ability of confidence (eg, lack of partner). Patient-reported outcome instruments. Median age at surgery and preoperative IIEF-6 were 63 years and 26, respectively. Among questionnaires completed after surgery, there was moderate correlation among the IIEF-6 score and both sexual desire (Spearman rho: 0.41) and sexual bother (Spearman rho: 0.30). In men who reported high or moderate bother relating to sexual function, there was a narrow distribution of erectile function scores, with most men reporting poor function (median IIEF-6: 6, interquartile range 3, 11). For men who reported small or no problem with sexual function, the distribution of erectile function scores was wide, and particularly bimodal as a function of sexual desire. Among patients with high desire, the correlation between sexual bother and erectile function was 0.61 (ie, the poorer is your function, the greater you are bothered), whereas it was -0.081 among patients with low desire, meaning that some men are not bothered by poor erections. We provided useful insights to help physicians during sexual counselling after surgery for prostate cancer. The study included a large number of patients and provides evidence for implementation of patient-reported outcome insturments. Limitations include the retrospective nature of our data. Sexual desire helps explain the moderate correlation between erectile function and sexual bother. Sexual desire and bother questions should be incorporated in patient-reported outcome instruments for male sexual function. Bravi CA, Tin A, Montorsi F, et al. Erectile Function and Sexual Satisfaction: The Importance of Asking About Sexual Desire. J Sex Med 2020;17:349–352. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We are developing item banks assessing the impact of retinal and vitreoretinal diseases (excluding age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and retinal detachment, covered elsewhere) on quality of life (QoL) for adults. This study outlines the first two phases of the multi-stage process: content development and item evaluation. Methods: We grouped retinal and vitreoretinal diseases into hereditary and acquired. Development of the item banks involved two phases: item identification and item evaluation. The items were extracted from three sources: (1) 17 pre-existing PRO instruments, (2) 4 qualitative studies and (3) 79 semi-structured interviews. Item evaluation involved three stages namely, binning (grouping) and winnowing (reduction), expert panel opinion and cognitive interviews. Results: The item identification phase yielded 1,217 items. After three sessions of binning and winnowing, items were reduced to a minimally representative set (n = 411) across nine QoL domains namely, activity limitation, emotional, social, health concerns, symptoms, economic, mobility, convenience, and coping. The hereditary group had a total of 345 items and the acquired group had a total of 257 items. After 23 cognitive interviews items were amended for hereditary diseases resulting in a final set of 345 items and 3 items were amended for acquired diseases, resulting in a final set of 254 items. Overall across nine domains 189 items were common to hereditary and acquired retinal and vitreoretinal diseases. Conclusion: As most of the items were unique to hereditary versus acquired retinal and vitreoretinal disease groups separate item banks are required to capture the QoL impacts for hereditary and acquired retinal and vitreoretinal diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to identify patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in research with children/youth with conditions associated with facial differences to identify the health concepts measured. Design: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from 2004 to 2016 to identify PRO instruments used in acne vulgaris, birthmarks, burns, ear anomalies, facial asymmetries, and facial paralysis patients. We performed a content analysis whereby the items were coded to identify concepts and categorized as positive or negative content or phrasing. Results: A total of 7,835 articles were screened; 6 generic and 11 condition-specific PRO instruments were used in 96 publications. Condition-specific instruments were for acne (four), oral health (two), dermatology (one), facial asymmetries (two), microtia (one), and burns (one). The PRO instruments provided 554 items (295 generic; 259 condition specific) that were sorted into 4 domains, 11 subdomains, and 91 health concepts. The most common domain was psychological (n = 224 items). Of the identified items, 76% had negative content or phrasing (e.g., “Because of the way my face looks I wish I had never been born”). Given the small number of items measuring facial appearance (n = 19) and function (n = 22), the PRO instruments reviewed lacked content validity for patients whose condition impacted facial function and/or appearance. Conclusions: Treatments can change facial appearance and function. This review draws attention to a problem with content validity in existing PRO instruments. Our team is now developing a new PRO instrument called FACE-Q Kids to address this problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Reflux Symptom Questionnaire electronic Diary (RESQ-eD) and the Reflux Symptom Questionnaire 7-day recall (RESQ-7) are versions of a patient-reported outcome instrument that was developed and validated for measuring the frequency and intensity of symptoms in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who have a partial response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy.Objective: The aim of these analyses was to assess the ability of the RESQ-7 to reproduce findings based on RESQ-eD reports of the same symptoms.Methods: These analyses are based on data from patients with GERD with a partial response to PPI (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00703534). Participants completed the RESQ-eD twice daily for 7 days and the RESQ-7 on day 7.Results: Data from 446 patients were available for these analyses. Symptom-level analyses showed that, for intensity, mean domain scores were higher for the RESQ-7 (range 1.49-2.72) than for the RESQ-eD (range 1.45-2.57); for frequency, scores were lower for the RESQ-7 (range 2.58-4.82) than for the RESQ-eD (range 4.22-6.24). Correspondence analyses of RESQ-7 and RESQ-eD mean domain scores indicated excellent agreement for intensity (correlation-concordance coefficient 0.77-0.83) and fair agreement for frequency (correlation-concordance coefficient 0.40-0.58). Mean RESQ-eD subscale intensity scores for GERD symptoms were higher for symptoms experienced during the daytime than for those occurring at nighttime. Symptom recall was not associated with peak or recency effects.Conclusions: Patients with GERD slightly overestimated the intensity of their reflux symptoms and markedly underestimated the frequency on weekly recall compared with twice-daily reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS) is one of the most comprehensive tools used in the clinical trials to measure the perceived unmet supportive care needs of cancer patients. The original 59-item instrument was developed and validated in English using rigorous methods. A short version containing 34 items was subsequently developed by the same authors (SCNS-SF34) and has since been translated into numerous other languages and validated, confirming its psychometrically robust properties. Cross-cultural validity is, in fact, important for international comparisons of self-reported measures. As an Italian form of the questionnaire does not exist at present, we decided to test the linguistic equivalence and cultural validity of a translated version of the SCNS-SF34 in a target population.Methods: The adaptation process was performed in accordance with Beaton's guidelines by a dedicated research team in collaboration with patient representatives.Results: The Italian questionnaire maintained the construct validity of the original version and was easy to understand and use.Conclusions: Preliminary results indicate that the SCNS-SF34 is feasible in an Italian population. Further research is ongoing at our institute to assess its psychometric properties in a larger case series and in different care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background context There is a growing demand to measure the real-world effectiveness and value of care across all specialties and disease states. Prospective registries have emerged as a feasible way to capture real-world care across large patient populations. However, the proven validity of more robust and cumbersome patient-reported outcome instruments (PROi) must be balanced with what is feasible to apply in large-scale registry efforts. Hence, commercial registry efforts that measure quality and effectiveness of care in an attempt to guide quality improvement, pay for performance, or value-based purchasing should incorporate measures that most accurately represent patient-centered improvement. Purpose We set out to establish the relative validity and responsiveness of common PROi in accurately determining effectiveness of cervical surgery for neck and arm pain in registry efforts. Study design Prospective cohort study. Patient sample Eighty-eight patients undergoing primary anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for neck and arm pain. Outcome measures Patient-reported outcome measures for pain (numeric rating scale for neck pain [NRS-NP] and arm pain [NRS-AP]), disability (neck disability index [NDI]), general health (short-form 12-item survey physical component summary [SF-12 PCS] and mental component summary [SF-12 MCS]), and quality of life (Euro-Qol-5D [EQ-5D]) were assessed. Methods Eighty-eight patients undergoing primary ACDF for neck and arm pain were entered into a Web-based prospective registry. Baseline and 12-month patient-reported outcomes (NRS-NP, NRS-AP, NDI, SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS, and EQ-5D) were assessed. Patients were also asked whether they experienced a level of improvement after ACDF that met their expectation (meaningful improvement). To assess the validity of NRS-NP, NRS-AP, and NDI (measures of pain and disability) to discriminate between meaningful and nonmeaningful improvement and the validity of SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS, and EQ-5D (measures of general health and quality of life) to discriminate between meaningful and nonmeaningful improvement, receiver-operating characteristic curves were generated for each outcome instrument. The greater the area under the curve (AUC), the more valid the discriminator. The difference between standardized response means (SRMs) in patients reporting meaningful improvement versus not was calculated to determine the relative responsiveness of each outcome instrument to changes in pain and QOL after surgery. Results For pain and disability, both NDI (AUC=0.75) and NRS-AP (AUC=0.74) were valid discriminators of meaningful improvement. Numeric rating scale for neck pain (AUC=0.69) was a poor discriminator. Neck disability index was also most responsive to postoperative improvement (SRM difference 0.78), followed by NRS-AP (SRM difference 0.59) and NRS-NP (SRM difference 0.46). For general health and quality of life, SF-12 PCS (AUC=0.79) was the only valid discriminator of meaningful improvement. Euro-Qol-5D (AUC=0.68) and SF-12 MCS (AUC=0.44) were poor discriminators. Short-form 12 physical component summary (SRM difference 1.08) was also most responsive compared with EQ-5D (SRM difference 0.89) and SF-12 MCS (SRM difference 0.01). Conclusions For pain and disability, NDI is the most valid and responsive measure of improvement after surgery for neck and arm pain. Numeric rating scale for neck pain and NRS-AP are poor substitutes for NDI when measuring effectiveness of care in registry efforts. For health-related quality of life, only SF-12 PCS could accurately discriminate meaningful improvement after cervical surgery and was found to be most valid and responsive. Large-scale registry efforts aimed at measuring effectiveness of cervical spine surgery should use NDI and SF-12 to accurately assess improvements in pain, disability, and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient-reported outcome instruments provide valuable insight into disease-related morbidity known only to the patient and complement more objective outcome tools in the clinical trial setting. They are of particular importance in systemic sclerosis owing to the challenges around defining disease activity, the episodic nature of many disease-specific manifestations and the paucity of validated objective surrogate outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Early clinical trials of systemic sclerosis often incorporated legacy patient-reported outcome instruments, but the last 20 years has witnessed the emergence of several scleroderma-specific instruments that are now being routinely used alongside other outcomes in systemic sclerosis clinical trials. More recently, the value of patient-reported outcomes has been highlighted by their prominence in the American College of Rheumatology Combined Response Index for Systemic Sclerosis that has been utilized as the primary endpoint of recent clinical trials of early diffuse systemic sclerosis. This review considers the role and performance of the various patient-reported outcome instruments utilized in systemic sclerosis clinical trials, the current positioning of patient-reported outcome instruments within clinical trial endpoint models across the range of systemic sclerosis disease manifestations and, where applicable, we shall highlight areas for future research., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: J.P. has consultancy relationships with Actelion and Boehringer Ingelheim. None of the other authors declared any relevant conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Background: Lack of uniformity in reported outcomes makes comparisons between acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injury studies challenging. Knowledge of common outcome measures and standardization will help orthopaedic surgeons report and compare outcomes more consistently., Purpose: To identify the most commonly reported outcome measures for ACJ injuries., Study Design: Systematic review., Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify all English-language original articles assessing any type of management of ACJ injuries (acute and chronic) in PubMed and Scopus from 2007 to 2017. Review articles, meta-analyses, studies with less than 5 patients, pediatric studies, technique articles, and biomechanical studies were excluded. The 100 top orthopaedic journals in the English literature were selected for review. Included studies were assessed for patient characteristics and the use of outcome variables, including range of motion (ROM), strength, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), satisfaction, return to work, return to sport, and complications., Results: A total of 605 unique articles were identified; 92 met the inclusion criteria. The average number of ACJ injuries per study was 37, with a mean weighted patient age of 36 years (range, 20.1-57.3 years). The mean follow-up was 36 months (range, 5-290 months). Acute injuries were reported in 59% of studies. ROM and strength measurements were reported in 22.8% and 5.4% of studies. Sixteen different PRO instruments were used. The most commonly reported measures were Constant score (75%), visual analog scale for pain (VAS-pain; 33%) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (21%), Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (19%), and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA; 17%) shoulder score. An average of 2.5 outcome measures per study were reported. The use of 4 or more outcome scores was associated with publication in higher-impact factor journals., Conclusion: Inconsistent reporting of multiple outcome measures is present in the ACJ injury literature. The best scoring system for assessing ACJ injury and treatment has not yet been agreed upon. Until improved scoring systems come into general use, we recommend that future literature on ACJ injuries use at least 4 outcome scores and include the commonly used outcome measures (Constant, VAS-pain, ASES, and SST scores) to enable future comparison of patient outcomes across publications., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: The University of Florida Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation receives research support from Exactech. B.S.S. has received educational support from Arthrex, speaking fees from DJO, royalties and consulting fees from Exectech, and hospitality payments from Zimmer Biomet. T.W.W. has received royalties from Exactech and Wolters Kluwer Health Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and consulting fees from Exactech. K.W.F. has received royalties from Arthrex and Exactech; consulting fees from Arthrex, Exactech, Flexion, and Medshape; speaking fees from CGG Medical; and honoraria from Arthrosurface. J.J.K. has received educational support from Arthrex, consulting fees from Exactech, and hospitality payments from Integra Lifesciences. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Introduction: We evaluate the most common outcome measures used in distal humerus fracture studies in order to suggest standardization for future research., Materials and Methods: A systematic review identified articles assessing the outcomes of acute distal humerus fractures from 2006 to 2016 from PubMed and Web of Science databases. The inclusion criterion was studies reporting on the outcomes of treatment of acute distal humerus fractures. Review articles, meta-analyses, studies with<5 patients, technique articles, biomechanical studies, and those focusing on one complication/outcome were excluded. Patient demographics and all outcome measures were reviewed. Journal and demographic factors were then compared., Results: One-hundred-nine of 2158 articles met inclusion criteria. The median number of fractures per study was 35. Mean patient age was 55.0 years. Average follow-up was 35 months. Range-of-motion and strength measurements were reported in 90% and 17% of studies, respectively. Twenty patient-reported outcome instruments were used. The most commonly reported measures were MEPS, DASH, VAS pain, and Quick DASH scores. An average of 1.9 outcome measures were reported per study. A journal impact factor of≥1.5 was associated with more reported outcome measures. Articles including elbow arthroplasty were associated with higher impact factor journals, more outcome measures, and longer follow-up. Level of evidence was not associated with the number of reported outcome measures., Discussion: The current distal humerus fracture literature inconsistently reports outcome measures. More outcome measures were reported in higher impact journals. Future distal humerus fracture studies should include MEPS, DASH or Quick DASH, and VAS Pain scores to allow for appropriate cross-study comparison., Level of Evidence: IV, Systematic review., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to identify patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in research with children/youth with conditions associated with facial differences to identify the health concepts measured., Design: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from 2004 to 2016 to identify PRO instruments used in acne vulgaris, birthmarks, burns, ear anomalies, facial asymmetries, and facial paralysis patients. We performed a content analysis whereby the items were coded to identify concepts and categorized as positive or negative content or phrasing., Results: A total of 7,835 articles were screened; 6 generic and 11 condition-specific PRO instruments were used in 96 publications. Condition-specific instruments were for acne (four), oral health (two), dermatology (one), facial asymmetries (two), microtia (one), and burns (one). The PRO instruments provided 554 items (295 generic; 259 condition specific) that were sorted into 4 domains, 11 subdomains, and 91 health concepts. The most common domain was psychological (n = 224 items). Of the identified items, 76% had negative content or phrasing (e.g., "Because of the way my face looks I wish I had never been born"). Given the small number of items measuring facial appearance (n = 19) and function (n = 22), the PRO instruments reviewed lacked content validity for patients whose condition impacted facial function and/or appearance., Conclusions: Treatments can change facial appearance and function. This review draws attention to a problem with content validity in existing PRO instruments. Our team is now developing a new PRO instrument called FACE-Q Kids to address this problem.

Study Design  Literature review. Objective  To identify outcomes instruments used in spinal trauma surgery over the past decade, their frequency of use, and usage trends. Methods  Five top orthopedic journals were reviewed from 2004 to 2013 for clinical studies of surgical intervention in spinal trauma that reported patient-reported outcome instruments use or neurologic function scale use. Publication year, level of evidence (LOE), and outcome instruments were collected for each article and analyzed. Results  A total of 58 studies were identified. Among them, 26 named outcome instruments and 7 improvised questionnaires were utilized. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was used most frequently (43.1%), followed by the Short Form 36 (34.5%), Frankel grade scale (25.9%), Oswestry Disability Index (20.7%) and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (15.5%). LOE 4 was most common (37.9%), and eight LOE 1 studies were identified (10.3%). Conclusions  The VAS pain scale is the most common outcome instrument used in spinal trauma. The scope of this outcome instrument is limited, and it may not be sufficient for discriminating between more and less effective treatments. A wide variety of functional measures are used, reflecting the need for a disease-specific instrument that accurately measures functional limitation in spinal trauma.

In this review we discuss health measurement with a focus on psychometric methods and methodology. In particular, we examine some of the key issues currently facing the use of clinician and patient rating scales to measure the health outcomes of disease and treatment. We present three key facts and flag one crucial problem. First, the numbers generated by scales are increasingly used as the measurements of the central dependent variables upon which clinical decisions are frequently made. The rising profile of rating scales has significant implications for scale construction, evaluation, and selection, as well as for interpreting studies. Second, rating scale science is well established. Therefore, it is important to learn the lessons from those who have built and established the science over the last century. Finally, the goal of a rating scale is to measure. As such, over the last half century, developments in rating scale (psychometric) methods have caused a refocus in the way we should be measuring health. In particular, newer methods have significant clinical advantages over traditional approaches. These should be seriously considered for inclusion in everyday practice. This leads us to the central problem with health measurement, which is that we cannot currently be sure what most rating scales are measuring. This is because the methods we have in place to ensure the validity of rating scales fall short of what is actually required. We expand on this point, and provide some potential routes forward to help address this important problem.