Characterizing the Use of Expectations in Orthopedic Surgery Research: A Scoping Review.
Characterizing the Use of Expectations in Orthopedic Surgery Research: A Scoping Review.
复制标题
描述整形外科研究中期望的使用：范围界定审查。
DOI：
10.1002/acr2.11054
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Katz,JeffreyN
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cortes,Alejandro;Meints,SamanthaM;Katz,JeffreyN
关于期望的骨科文献由于缺乏对期望的定义、概念化和测量的统一性而受到限制。在这一范围审查，我们提出了一个概念框架，以了解结构的期望及其衍生物（即，期望，期望，期望等）的研究，选择性外科整形手术。我们还利用这个框架来映射当前的整形外科文献的期望，突出其优势，劣势，和差距，在其knowledge base.MethodsWe包括的文章中提到的期望和一个或多个10个选定的手术在其标题或摘要。我们关注的是覆盖身体主要区域的有代表性的择期骨科手术。我们将每个研究的个体期望项操作化为所提出的概念模型中的期望概念类型之一。我们还提取了名称和类型的期望测量工具，其预期进行测量，和描述性信息（例如，手术类型，出版日期，原产国和研究类型）。共有64%的研究调查了全膝关节和全髋关节置换术，而90%的研究调查了患者的期望，5.6%调查了医生的期望，4.4%调查了两者。在所有研究中，72%的研究使用了具有封闭式Likert型回答格式的研究特定工具或对现有期望问卷的修改。大多数研究关注理想的、非时间相关的治疗结局预期。许多研究聚合多个期望结果到一个单一score.ConclusionAdopting在这项研究中提出的期望的标准化框架，将促进更清晰的沟通，并允许研究人员跨研究聚合结果。
ObjectiveOrthopedic literature on expectations is limited by lack of uniformity in how expectations are defined, conceptualized, and measured. Within this scoping review, we present a conceptual framework for understanding the construct of expectations and its derivatives (ie, expectation, expectancy, expectancies, etc) in studies of elective surgical orthopedic procedures. We also utilize this framework to map the current orthopedic surgery literature on expectations, highlighting its strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in its knowledge base.MethodsWe included articles that mentioned both expectations and one or more of 10 selected surgeries in their title or abstract. We focused on representative elective orthopedic surgeries that covered the body's major regions. We operationalized each study's individual expectation items into one of the expectation concept types within the presented conceptual model. We also extracted the name and type of expectations measurement tool used, whose expectations were measured, and descriptive information (eg, surgery type, publication date, country of origin, and study type).ResultsNinety studies were included, with 70% published after 2008. A total of 64% investigated total knee and total hip arthroplasty, whereas 90% of studies investigated the expectations of patients, 5.6% investigated the expectations of physicians, and 4.4% investigated both. Of all studies, 72% utilized either study‐specific instruments with close‐ended, Likert‐type response formats or modifications of existing expectations questionnaires. Most studies focused on desirable, nontimeline‐related, treatment outcome expectations. Many studies aggregated multiple expectation results into a single score.ConclusionAdopting the standardized framework for expectations presented in this study will foster clearer communication and permit researchers to aggregate results across studies.