Quality and reporting of patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients with hip fracture: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To assess how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reported and to assess the quality of reporting PROs for elderly patients with a hip fracture in both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched on 1 March 2013 to 25 May 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs and observational studies on geriatric (≥65 years of age) patients, with one or more PRO as outcome were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Primary outcome was type of PRO; secondary outcome and quality assessment was measured by adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for patient-reported outcomes (CONSORT-PRO). Because of heterogeneity in study population and outcomes, data pooling was not possible. RESULTS: 3659 studies were found in the initial search. Of those, 67 were included in the final analysis. 83.6% of studies did not adequately mention missing data, 52.3% did not correctly report how PROs were collected and 61.2% did not report adequate effect size. PRO limitations were adequately reported in 20.9% of studies and interpretation of PROs was adequately reported in 19.4% of studies. Most Quality of Life (QoL) outcomes were measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Levels, and pain as well as patient satisfaction by Visual Analogue Scale. CONCLUSION: This study found that a high variety of PRO measures are used to evaluate geriatric hip fracture care. In addition, 47.8% of studies examining PROs in elderly patients with hip fracture do not satisfy at least 50% of the CONSORT-PRO criteria. This enables poorly conducted research to be published and used in evidence-based medicine and, consequently, shared decision-making. More efforts should be undertaken to improve adequate reporting. We believe extending the CONSORT-PRO extension to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for observational studies would be a valuable addition to current guidelines.