Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis

被引:205
作者
Rolfson, Ola [1 ,2 ]
Bohm, Eric [3 ,4 ]
Franklin, Patricia [5 ,6 ]
Lyman, Stephen [7 ,8 ]
Denissen, Geke [9 ]
Dawson, Jill [10 ,11 ]
Dunn, Jennifer [12 ,13 ]
Chenok, Kate Eresian [14 ]
Dunbar, Michael [15 ,16 ]
Overgaard, Soren [17 ,18 ]
Garellick, Goeran [1 ,2 ]
Lubbeke, Anne [19 ]
机构
[1] Univ Gothenburg, Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden
[2] Univ Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Acad, Gothenburg, Sweden
[3] Canadian Joint Replacement Registry, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[4] Univ Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
[5] FORCE TJR, Worcester, MA USA
[6] Univ Massachusetts, Sch Med, Worcester, MA USA
[7] Hosp Special Surg, 535 E 70th St, New York, NY 10021 USA
[8] Weill Cornell Med Coll, New York, NY USA
[9] Dutch Arthroplasty Register, sHertogenbosch, Netherlands
[10] Nuffield Dept Populat Hlth, Oxford, England
[11] Univ Oxford, Oxford, England
[12] New Zealand Joint Registry, Christchurch, New Zealand
[13] Univ Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
[14] Calif Joint Replacement Registry, San Francisco, CA USA
[15] Canadian Joint Replacement Registry, Halifax, NS, Canada
[16] Dalhousie Univ, Halifax, NS, Canada
[17] Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Odense, Denmark
[18] Univ Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
[19] Univ Hosp Geneva, Div Orthopaed Surg, Geneva Arthroplasty Registry, Geneva, Switzerland
关键词
TOTAL HIP-REPLACEMENT; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; NATIONAL-JOINT-REGISTRY; SHARED DECISION-MAKING; VISUAL ANALOG SCALES; FORM HEALTH SURVEY; BODY-MASS INDEX; RHEUMATOID-ARTHRITIS; OXFORD HIP;
D O I
10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Working Group have evaluated and recommended best practices in the selection, administration, and interpretation of PROMs for hip and knee arthroplasty registries. The 2 generic PROMs in common use are the Short Form health surveys (SF-36 or SF-12) and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D). The Working Group recommends that registries should choose specific PROMs that have been appropriately developed with good measurement properties for arthroplasty patients. The Working Group recommend the use of a 1-item pain question (During the past 4 weeks, how would you describe the pain you usually have in your [right/left] [hip/knee]?; response: none, very mild, mild, moderate, or severe) and a single-item satisfaction outcome (How satisfied are you with your [right/left] [hip/knee] replacement?; response: very unsatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, or very satisfied). Survey logistics include patient instructions, paper- and electronic-based data collection, reminders for follow-up, centralized as opposed to hospital-based follow-up, sample size, patient- or joint-specific evaluation, collection intervals, frequency of response, missing values, and factors in establishing a PROMs registry program. The Working Group recommends including age, sex, diagnosis at joint, general health status preoperatively, and joint pain and function score in case-mix adjustment models. Interpretation and statistical analysis should consider the absolute level of pain, function, and general health status as well as improvement, missing data, approaches to analysis and case-mix adjustment, minimal clinically important difference, and minimal detectable change. The Working Group recommends data collection immediately before and 1 year after surgery, a threshold of 60% for acceptable frequency of response, documentation of non-responders, and documentation of incomplete or missing data.
引用
收藏
页码:9 / 23
页数:15
相关论文
共 109 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2015, PROMIS OV
[2]  
[Anonymous], CLIN ORTHOP RELAT RE
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1999, Classifying Educational Programmes: Manual for ISCED-97 Implementation in OECD Countries
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2006, INT STAND CLASS ED I
[5]   Patient-Reported Outcomes After Total Knee Replacement Vary on the Basis of Preoperative Coexisting Disease in the Lumbar Spine and Other Nonoperatively Treated Joints [J].
Ayers, David C. ;
Li, Wenjun ;
Oatis, Carol ;
Rosal, Milagros C. ;
Franklin, Patricia D. .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2013, 95A (20) :1833-1837
[6]   The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement - Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales [J].
Baker, P. N. ;
van der Meulen, J. H. ;
Lewsey, J. ;
Gregg, P. J. .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 2007, 89B (07) :893-900
[7]   Patient satisfaction with total knee replacement cannot be predicted from pre-operative variables alone A COHORT STUDY FROM THE NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY FOR ENGLAND AND WALES [J].
Baker, P. N. ;
Rushton, S. ;
Jameson, S. S. ;
Reed, M. ;
Gregg, P. ;
Deehan, D. J. .
BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2013, 95B (10) :1359-1365
[8]   Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain [J].
Garry R Barton ;
Tracey H Sach ;
Anthony J Avery ;
Michael Doherty ;
Claire Jenkinson ;
Kenneth R Muir .
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 7 (1)
[9]  
BELLAMY N, 1988, J RHEUMATOL, V15, P1833
[10]   Osteoarthritis: an update with relevance for clinical practice [J].
Bijlsma, Johannes W. J. ;
Berenbaum, Francis ;
Lafeber, Foris P. J. G. .
LANCET, 2011, 377 (9783) :2115-2126