Guidance for outcome reporting in ankle fracture trials do not currently exist, outcome reporting standards have not been defined, and the magnitude of inconsistencies in outcome reporting remains unknown. clinical, clinician-reported, patient-reported, economic impact, or resource use), such heterogeneity in outcome assessment can limit evidence synthesis or meta-analysis, detract from the developing evidence base to inform clinical practice, and contribute to research waste. 7- 9 However, where trials include a wide range of different outcomes (e.g. The results of clinical trials and subsequent evidence reviews are essential for guideline development for the management and care of patients with ankle fractures. 4, 5 Understanding and accurately assessing outcomes following ankle fracture is therefore important to informing high-quality research.
Evidence suggests that recovery from ankle fracture can be slow, 4, 5 with protracted physical and psychological implications, 2, 6 and a variable rate at which patients return to their pre-injury lives. 1 Irrespective of age, they are associated with significant morbidity, 1- 3 pain, and impaired function, with a substantial reduction in ability to perform activities of daily life widely described. Ankle fractures, including distal tibial fractures, account for approximately 14% of fractures requiring hospitalization.
0 kommentar(er)
