• Burns · Mar 2021

    A systematic review to investigate outcome tools currently in use for those with hand burns, and mapping psychometric properties of outcome measures.

    • Andrea Mc Kittrick, Louise Gustafsson, and Kathryn Marshall.
    • Department of Occupational Therapy, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, 4029, QLD, Australia; School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, QLD Australia. Electronic address: Andrea.McKittrick@health.qld.gov.au.
    • Burns. 2021 Mar 1; 47 (2): 295-314.

    BackgroundSevere burn injuries to the hand impact multiple domains of function and participation. Measurement of outcomes after hand burn injuries is multifaceted and is influenced by several variables.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to review outcome measures reported in studies used to measure outcomes after severe hand burn injuries; and to critically evaluate the reliability, validity and clinical utility of each hand assessment tool identified from the literature to determine suitability for use with the burn's population.Data SourcesA search of the published literature using electronic data bases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PEDro, OT seeker and PubMed was undertaken. Studies were included if they reported assessment tools and outcome measures used to determine hand function after severe burn injuries; were published in English and available in their full-length. Studies were excluded if they were related to a group under 18 years of age.ResultsThirty-four papers were included in this systematic review. A total of 25 outcome measures were confirmed for inclusion in this paper and each underwent further evaluation to identify their psychometric properties.LimitationsA factor which could cause bias in this systematic review was the search was restricted to English language journals therefore excluding any primary papers in other languages. Mapping of the outcome measures to the ICF was conducted by the primary author which may give rise to bias however a member checking was conducted in order to remove this bias.ConclusionsThis review established that no one outcome measure meets all the psychometric properties of validity, reliability and responsiveness SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER PROSPERO: CRD42018085059.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.