Comprehensiveness of Outcome Reporting in Studies of Articular Cartilage Defects of the Knee

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting after treatment of focal articular cartilage defects in the knee.

Methods: A systematic review of literature published over the past 5 years (October 2010 to October 2015) in 5 high-impact orthopaedic journals was completed to identify all recent clinical studies tracking outcomes after surgery for focal articular cartilage defects in the knee. A metric reporting score was calculated for each study, according to reporting of 6 cardinal domains: pain, satisfaction, osteoarthritis progression, subjective knee function, objective knee function, and patient-reported outcomes.

Results: Of the 122 studies included for review, 117 (96%) tracked patient-reported outcomes during follow-up. Nearly two-thirds of studies (63%) monitored progression of osteoarthritis at follow-up. Fewer than half of studies (39%) specifically monitored pain outcomes in patients. One-third of studies (30%) tracked patient satisfaction. Only 21% of studies monitored subjective knee function using proxies such as return to play, and only 17% of studies reported on objective knee function during return visits to the clinic. The average metric reporting score of all studies was 2.6, and nearly half of studies (48%) reported on only 1 or 2 domains of interest.

Conclusions: There is substantial variability in outcome reporting after cartilage surgery in high-impact orthopaedic journals. Furthermore, most studies do not comprehensively track outcomes across domains. Both factors hinder comparison of results across studies. Future outcome metrics should focus on patient-centered factors to improve both accuracy of results reporting and standardization across studies.

Level of evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.