How Do We Best Measure Outcomes Following Cartilage Repair Surgery?
Cartilage Injury of the Knee: State-of-the-Art Treatment and Controversies, Page: 25-35
2021
- 1Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures1
- Readers1
Book Chapter Description
Early attempts at systematic assessment of patient outcomes focused on easily measurable, objective observations of clinical failure: surgical site infection, implant failure, revision surgery, or even death. These outcomes are still reported today as they remain objectively observable evidence of failure of surgical treatment. But how do we measure success? This is a particularly important question for cartilage repair where the evaluation of novel approaches, such as the implantation of stem cells, scaffolds, or other biologics against existing treatments, remains a significant hurdle for clinical development. The innovation of therapies for cartilage repair remains an active area of research because current treatments such as microfracture, tissue grafting, and chondrocyte transplantation do not lead to the formation of tissue with the normal, complex architecture of native articular cartilage within a treated lesion. Yet we have to understand whether and how tissue quality correlates with clinical treatment success, which considers such factors as return to full, pain-free activity and forestalling the progression to degenerative arthritis in the affected joint. Here, we review the most relevant outcome assessment tools for successful cartilage repair.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85160163642&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78051-7_3; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-78051-7_3; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-78051-7_3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78051-7_3; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-78051-7_3
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know