What Outcome Measures Are Reported in the Management of Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries?

Area of Science:

• Orthopaedics
• Sports Medicine
• Clinical Research Methodology

Background:

• Acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injuries lack standardized outcome reporting, hindering comparative analysis.
• Consistent reporting is essential for orthopaedic surgeons to evaluate and compare treatment efficacy.

Purpose of the Study:

• To identify and analyze the most frequently reported outcome measures in studies concerning acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injuries.

Main Methods:

• Systematic review of English-language articles published between 2007 and 2017 in PubMed and Scopus.
• Exclusion of non-original research, studies with fewer than 5 patients, pediatric cases, and technique-specific articles.
• Assessment of included studies for patient demographics, management types, and specific outcome variables like ROM, strength, PROs, and return to activity.

Main Results:

• Ninety-two studies met inclusion criteria, with an average of 37 ACJ injuries per study and a mean follow-up of 36 months.
• Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were frequently used, with the Constant score (75%) being most common, followed by visual analog scale for pain (VAS-pain; 33%), ASES (21%), SST (19%), and UCLA (17%).
• An average of 2.5 outcome measures were reported per study; using four or more was linked to higher-impact journal publications.

Conclusions:

• The literature on ACJ injuries exhibits significant inconsistency in outcome measure reporting.
• There is no universally agreed-upon scoring system for assessing ACJ injury and treatment effectiveness.
• Future research on ACJ injuries should adopt a minimum of four outcome measures, including widely used scores like Constant, VAS-pain, ASES, and SST, to enhance comparability.