Data collection and analysis A minimum of two review authors independently reviewed search results to select studies for inclusion by using pre-specified criteria, assessed risk of bias of included studies and extracted data from included studies. We grouped outcomes into the following categories: (1) hand function, (2) other patient-reported outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, pain), (3) early objective outcomes (e.g. correction of angular deformity), (4) late objective outcomes (e.g. recurrence) and (5) adverse effects. Main results We included 14 articles describing 13 studies, comprising 11 single-centre studies and two multi-centre studies. These studies involved 944 hands of 940 participants; of these, 93 participants were reported twice in separate articles describing early and late outcomes of one trial. Three papers reported the outcomes of two trials comparing different procedures. One trial compared needle fasciotomy versus fasciectomy (125 hands, 121 participants), and the other compared interposition firebreak skin grafting versus z-plasty closure of fasciectomy (79 participants). The other 11 studies reported trials of technical refinements of procedures or rehabilitation adjuncts. Of these, three investigated effects of postoperative splinting on surgical outcomes. Ten studies (11 articles) were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of varying methodological quality; one was a controlled clinical trial. Trial design was unclear in two studies awaiting classification. All trials had high or unclear risk of at least one type of bias. High risks of performance and detection bias were particularly common. We downgraded the quality of evidence (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation-GRADE) of outcomes to low because of concerns about risk of bias and imprecision. Outcomes measured varied between studies. Five articles assessed recurrence; two defined this as reappearance of palpable disease and two as deterioration in angular deformity; one did not explicitly define recurrence. Hand function on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Scale (scores between 0 and 100, with higher scores indicating greater impairment) was 5 points lower after needle fasciotomy than after fasciectomy at five weeks. Patient satisfaction was better after fasciotomy at six weeks, but the magnitude of effect was not specified. Fasciectomy improved contractures more effectively in severe disease: Mean percentage reduction in total passive extension deficit at six weeks for Tubiana grades I and II was 11% lower after needle fasciotomy than after fasciectomy, whereas for grades III and IV disease, it was 29% and 32% lower. Paraesthesia (defined as subjective tingling sensation without objective evidence of altered sensation) was more common than needle fasciotomy at one week after fasciectomy (228/1000 vs 67/1000), but reporting of complications was variable. By five years, satisfaction (on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher scores showing greater satisfaction) was 2.1/10 points higher in the fasciect...

This study investigated aspects of the validity and reliability of the 30-item Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand patient-reported outcome measure (DASH) and its relationship with the shorter 11-item QuickDASH in patients with Dupuytren’s disease. Seven hundred and fifty-nine DASH questionnaires were studied, covering pre- and postoperative patients undergoing different treatments for Dupuytren’s disease. Items related to pain rose early after treatment before returning to baseline, suggesting that studying pain is relevant during postoperative recovery. Across all 759 sets of responses, the QuickDASH agreed closely with the DASH. In exploratory factor analysis, the DASH was not unidimensional, questioning the validity of the DASH summary score in Dupuytren’s disease. Further validation of existing PROMs for use in Dupuytren’s disease is needed. These data suggest that pain is a relevant symptom to study during postoperative recovery following treatment for Dupuytren’s disease. Level of evidence: III.

ImportanceGender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy.ObjectiveTo identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation.Evidence ReviewIn this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080).FindingsIn total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.