Cited by 131Total Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Measuring expectations in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review

Open access
Zywiel, Michael G., Mahomed, Anisah, Gandhi, Rajiv, Perruccio, Anthony V., Mahomed, Nizar N.·2013·Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Advances in the surgical treatment of musculoskeletal conditions have resulted in an interest in better defining and understanding patients' expectations of these procedures, but the best ways to do this remain a topic of considerable debate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What validated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations of orthopaedic surgery have been used in published studies to date? (2) How were these expectation measures developed and validated? (3) What unvalidated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations have been used in published studies to date? METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the OVID Medline and EMBASE databases, in duplicate, to identify all studies that assessed patient expectations in orthopaedic surgery. Sixty-six studies were ultimately included in the present review. RESULTS: Seven validated expectation instruments were identified, all of which use patient-reported questionnaires. Five were specific to a particular procedure or affected anatomic location, whereas two were broadly applicable. Details of reliability and validity testing were available for all but one of these instruments. Forty additional unvalidated expectation assessment tools were identified. Thirteen were based on existing clinical outcome tools, and the others were study-specific, custom-developed tools. Only one of the unvalidated tools was used in more than one study. CONCLUSIONS: Several validated expectation instruments have been developed for use by patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. However, many tools have been reported without evidence of testing and validation. The wide range of untested instruments used in single studies substantially limits the interpretation and comparison of data concerning patient expectations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11999-013-3013-8

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Negative affective responses to pain and pain-related catastrophizing are as prominent in adolescent patients.

    “negative affective responses to pain, and pain-related catastrophizing are as prominent in adolescent patients 400–402”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zywiel, M. G., Mahomed, A., Gandhi, R., Perruccio, A. V., & Mahomed, N. N.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
Published
2013-11
Volume
471
Issue
11
Pages
3446-3456
ISSN
0009-921X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969328092
Cited by
131
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
patient expectations, orthopedic surgery, patient-reported outcome measures, instrument validation, reliability and validity, musculoskeletal surgery
MeSH terms
Health Services Research, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Orthopedic Procedures, Quality Indicators, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review