Citations

Background: Several special tests for detecting medial ulnar collateral ligament (MUCL) injuries of the elbow have been described, but data on the clinical utility of these tests are limited. Purpose: To determine the clinical utility of selected elbow special tests to detect MUCL injuries in an athletic population. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 84 consecutive patients with sports-related elbow pain underwent a standardized clinical examination. Overall, 6 special tests (moving valgus stress test, static valgus stress test, modified valgus stress test, milking maneuver, pronation flexion resistance test, and temple/cheek press test) were performed. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive/negative predictive value, and positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR+ and LR–, respectively) were calculated for individual tests and combinations of tests to detect MUCL injuries. Higher values for the LR+ and lower values for the LR– represent stronger clinical utility. Results: For detecting MUCL injuries, the moving valgus stress test resulted in the highest sensitivity (98%) and accuracy (93%) with the lowest LR– (2%). The milking maneuver had the highest LR+ (5.1) with the second highest sensitivity (77%) and accuracy (79%). The pronation flexion resistance test and the temple/cheek press test had the lowest LR+ (1.5 and 1.8, respectively) and highest LR– (94% and 95%, respectively) in addition to the lowest sensitivity (16% and 9%, respectively) and accuracy (33% and 30%, respectively). No combination of tests resulted in increased clinical utility. Conclusion: The moving valgus stress test and milking maneuver demonstrated acceptable clinical utility in which the moving valgus stress test was better for ruling out MUCL injuries and the milking maneuver was better at ruling in MUCL injuries. There was no added value when combining the 2 tests together or with other maneuvers.

Background: A critical component of conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses is assessing the methodological quality and bias of included studies. Several methodological quality assessment tools have been developed; however, these tools may not be relevant to observational sports medicine research, which carries numerous unique nuances and biases. Purpose: To develop the Sport Publication Observational Research Tool (SPORT), which evaluates and scores the methodological quality of observational sports medicine research. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: SPORT was developed through a modified Delphi approach involving members from the Herodicus Society and The FORUM. All active members were invited to participate in the process aimed at building consensus on SPORT content and scoring. After finalizing SPORT, a power analysis led to the independent selection of 55 observational clinical sports medicine studies, which were scored twice by 4 reviewers of varying training levels. Interrater and intrarater reliability for SPORT was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The distribution and percentiles for total SPORT score across the 55 studies were calculated. SPORT was also compared with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a commonly utilized quality assessment tool. Results: A total of 51 members participated and achieved 100%, 100%, 98.0%, and 98.0% completion rates for rounds 1 through 4, respectively. The final SPORT included 19 subscores related to methodological quality and bias and achieved 94% consensus approval. Mean SPORT completion time was 6 minutes and 19 seconds per study, which varied significantly by reviewer training level. The subscore "peer review" demonstrated unacceptable reliability and was removed. The remaining 18 subscores exhibited ICC ranges of 0.599 to 0.955 for interrater reliability and 0.530 to 0.936 for intrarater reliability. Total SPORT score demonstrated excellent agreement, for interrater (ICC, 0.967) and intrarater reliability (ICC, 0.966). Median SPORT score across the 55 studies was 20.0 and skewed toward lower scores. There was a moderate significant correlation between SPORT and MINORS ( r [53] = 0.575; P < .001). Conclusion: An objective tool to assess the methodologic quality of observational sports medicine research (SPORT) was successfully developed through a modified Delphi approach with numerous content experts in the field. This tool may be useful in assessing the methodological quality of primary observational sports medicine studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Background: The lack of a standardized system for describing cell therapies acts as a barrier to advancement in clinical and basic research and practice. The aim of this study was to establish an international expert consensus on strategies to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The secondary aim was to develop a consensus among experts on the contents of a standardized tool for describing cell therapies. Methods: The need for expert consensus on strategies to improve cell therapy communication was confirmed at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/National Institutes of Health Optimizing Clinical Use of Biologics Symposium in 2018. A working group of 6 experts convened an international consensus process involving clinicians and basic scientists using validated Delphi methodology. This iterative process was used to define statements on communication of cell therapies and develop a standardized tool for describing cell therapies. Results: Thirty-four experts completed 3 rounds survey with use of the Delphi process. After 3 rounds, 27 statements relating to existing nomenclature, solutions to improve communication, ideal characteristics of a framework, mandatory elements of a new framework, and future work to facilitate application reached consensus with >80% agreement and <5% disagreement. Consensus was reached on the contents of a tool for improving standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. This tool, dubbed “DOSES,” is based on the reporting of 5 core items: donor (i.e., autologous, allogeneic, xenogeneic), origin of tissue, separation from other cell types/preparation method, exhibited cell characteristics associated with behavior, and the site of delivery. Conclusions: This study has established expert consensus on the communication of cell therapies. The DOSES tool has been developed to improve standardization and transparency in describing cell therapies. Clinical Relevance: The DOSES tool for describing cell therapies can be utilized by researchers, clinicians, regulators, and industry professionals to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The use of this tool may allow clinicians and patients to better understand the characteristics of current and future cell preparations.