Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 248 items for :

  • "patient report" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Full access

James L. Farnsworth II, Todd Evans, Helen Binkley, and Minsoo Kang

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been shown to increase adherence to rehabilitation and improve communication between patients and their clinician through measurement of important subjective outcomes, such as quality of life and other psychological, sociological, and

Restricted access

James L. Farnsworth II, Todd Evans, Helen Binkley, and Minsoo Kang

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) help clinicians evaluate patients’ perceptions of changes in their own health status. These tools are especially valuable for measuring attributes that cannot be directly measured, such as pain, or that are not pragmatic or feasible to measure (eg

Restricted access

Revay O. Corbett, Tyler R. Keith, and Jay Hertel

suggested to be used to aid in the RTP decision-making process. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are collected using questionnaires to assess a patient’s perception of their injury, function, and overall well-being. Although these tools are widely used and accepted in research and clinical practice, they

Open access

Erik A. Wikstrom, Sajad Bagherian, Nicole B. Cordero, and Kyeongtak Song

ankle joint mobilizations on patient-reported outcomes in patients with CAI remain unclear. Focused Clinical Question Do anterior-to-posterior ankle joint mobilizations improve patient-reported outcomes in patients with CAI? Summary of Search, “Best Evidence” Appraised, and Key Findings • The literature

Restricted access

Jennifer F. Mullins, Arthur J. Nitz, and Matthew C. Hoch

thereby present valuable evidence in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in individuals with CAI. 23 Therefore, the purpose of this Critically Appraised Topic (CAT) was to appraise the best evidence regarding the effects of DN on PROs in individuals with CAI. Focused Clinical Question Does DN improve PROs

Restricted access

Mark A. Sutherlin

Clinical Scenario Widespread patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in athletic training is still marginal. 1 As sport injury pathologies tend to affect and are reported for individual body parts (e.g., ankle, knee, etc.) or more broadly across regions (e.g., the upper or lower extremity), 2 it is

Restricted access

Johanna M. Hoch, Cori W. Sinnott, Kendall P. Robinson, William O. Perkins, and Jonathan W. Hartman

-oriented outcomes are used to subjectively assess a patient’s well-being and function and are often categorized into generic, region, and dimension-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). 3 Clinician-oriented outcomes (CBOs) can be utilized to assess the effects of the health condition at the body

Restricted access

Karrie L. Hamstra-Wright, Burcu Aydemir, Jennifer Earl-Boehm, Lori Bolgla, Carolyn Emery, and Reed Ferber


Hip- and knee-muscle-strengthening programs are effective in improving short-term patient-reported and disease-oriented outcomes in individuals with patellofemoral pain (PFP), but few to no data exist on moderate- to long-term postrehabilitative outcomes. The first purpose of the study was to assess differences in pain, function, strength, and core endurance in individuals with PFP before, after, and 6 mo after successful hip- or knee-muscle-strengthening rehabilitation. The second purpose was to prospectively follow these subjects for PFP recurrence at 6, 12, and 24 mo postrehabilitation.


For 24 mo postrehabilitation, 157 physically active subjects with PFP who reported treatment success were followed. At 6 mo postrehabilitation, pain, function, hip and knee strength, and core endurance were measured. At 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo, PFP recurrence was measured via electronic surveys.


Sixty-eight subjects (43%) returned to the laboratory at 6 mo. Regardless of rehabilitation program, subjects experienced significant improvements in pain and function, strength, and core endurance pre- to postrehabilitation and maintained improvements in pain and function 6 mo postrehabilitation (Visual Analog Scale/Pain—pre 5.12 ± 1.33, post 1.28 ± 1.14, 6 mo 1.68 ± 2.16 cm, P < .05; Anterior Knee Pain Scale/Function—pre 76.38 ± 8.42, post 92.77 ± 7.36, 6 mo 90.27 ± 9.46 points, P < .05). Over the 24 mo postrehabilitation, 5.10% of subjects who responded to the surveys reported PFP recurrence.


The findings support implementing a hip-or knee-muscle-strengthening program for the treatment of PFP. Both programs improve pain, function, strength, and core endurance in the short term with moderate- and long-term benefits of improved pain and function and low PFP recurrence.

Restricted access

Grant E. Norte, Jay N. Hertel, Susan A. Saliba, David R. Diduch, and Joseph M. Hart

Clinical outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) are often evaluated based on impairment and patient-reported function. The use of clinically meaningful tests is an important aspect of return to activity decision making following ACL-R. Information from a variety of

Restricted access

Cynthia J. Wright and Shelley W. Linens


To track the patient-reported efficacy of a 4-wk intervention (wobble board [WB] or resistance tubing [RT]) in decreasing symptoms of chronic ankle instability (CAI) at 6 mo postintervention (6PI) as compared with immediately postintervention (IPI).


Randomized controlled trial.


Fourteen of 21 participants (66.7%) responded to an electronic 6-m follow-up questionnaire (age 19.6 ± 0.9 y, height 1.63 ± 0.18 m, weight 70.5 ± 16.3 kg; 2 male, 12 female; 5 WB, 9 RT). All participants met CAI criteria at enrollment, including a history of ankle sprain and recurrent episodes of giving way.


Participants completed either RT or WB protocols, both 12 sessions over 4 wk of progressive exercise. WB sessions consisted of five 40-s sets of clockwise and counterclockwise rotations. RT sessions consisted of 30 contractions against resistance tubing in each of 4 ankle directions.

Main Outcome Measurements:

Patient-reported symptoms of “giving way” preintervention and at 6PI, global rating of change (GRC) frequencies at IPI and 6PI, and resprains at 6PI were reported descriptively. Changes in global rating of function (GRF) and giving way were compared using Wilcoxon tests, while GRC was compared with Fisher exact test.


All participants reported giving way preintervention, only 57.1% reported giving way at 6PI. Resprains occurred in 21.4% of participants. Giving-way frequency (P = .017), but not GRF or GRC (P > .05), was significantly different at IPI vs 6PI.


Simple 4-wk interventions maintained some but not all improvements at 6PI. At least 42.9% of participants would no longer meet the current study’s CAI inclusion criteria due to a reduction in giving way.