DOS 2020

180 · DOS Abstracts Patient reported outcome measures in musculoskeletal research: Less than 14 % are valid instruments. Christian Fugl Hansen, Jonas Jensen, Volkert Siersma, Jonathan Comins, John Brodersen, Michael Rindom Krogsgaard Section for Sports Traumatology M51, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital; Research Unit and Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Copenhagen University; Research Unit and Section for General Practice, University of Copenhagen and Region Zealand Background: PROM-data are the most important outcomes in musculoskeletal research. Most PROMs are described as valid and reliable. However, many have not been developed with help from relevant patients and very few have been validated for construct validity with proper statistical methods. Purpose / Aim of Study: To assess the content and construct validity of the most commonly used PROMs in sports research, and to produce a catalogue of these PROMs. Materials and Methods: A PubMed search “patient reported outcome mea- sures sports” resulted in 915 articles published between July 29, 2011 and November 24, 2019. Articles relevant to sports and with at least one named PROM as outcome were included, 439 articles. A total of 194 different PROMs had been used. Condition specific PROMs that had been used at least three times (42) and PROMs that had been used once or twice but were the only PROMs for a specific condition (13) plus six PROMs that were identified in a search regarding RCTs in sports science, were selected for analyses. Articles describing development of these 61 PROMs were assessed for content validity. All articles regarding construct validity for each PROM (including all published translations) (in total 622 articles) were analyzed. Findings / Results: A catalogue with assessment of 61 PROMs and translated versions was produced. The majority of these were of inferior validity. Most commonly (in 53 of 61 PROMs (87%)) there was no security of high content validity in development. Another major reason for inferior validity was that con- struct validity had not been secured by adequate statistical methods. Conclusions: A majority of the assessed PROMs have no proven validity as measurement tools. Scientific results obtained by use of these PROMs are ques- tionable. From this catalogue it is possible to identify the most valid PROMs as outcome measures for specific studies in sports medicine and sports traumatol- ogy. It is important that a targeted effort is made to develop valid PROMs for major musculoskeletal conditions. In all articles containing results obtained by PROMs without proven content- and construct validity, it should be thoroughly discussed how this may affect the results. 159.