Structural severity versus clinical reality: Are we measuring the right endpoints?
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42117037.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1002/jeo2.70741 and PMC identifier 13157615.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
Patient-reported outcome measures are well established in sports medicine as a standard tool for assessing treatment success. Despite efforts to define clinically meaningful thresholds, studies often report improved clinical outcomes alongside suboptimal structural, biological or imaging findings. This evidence highlights a persistent gap between patient-reported improvement and objective changes, underscoring the limitations of current outcome metrics. These findings challenge the assumption that better clinical outcomes translate into improved structural results. Reliance on subjective measures alone seems insufficient to define true success. A more comprehensive approach is needed to better align clinical assessment with biological and biomechanical realities and to more accurately define meaningful patient benefit. <b>Level of Evidence:</b> N/A.