Search

Abstract Introduction Primary total elbow replacement (TER) services in England are being restructured with the goal of centralising care to specialised centres. It is important to monitor the impact of this service redesign. This protocol outlines an intended analysis to provide detailed descriptions of the patients who are receiving primary TER, where and by whom TER is being performed, and what the current surgical practices for TER are in England before the reconfiguration. Methods This analysis will use the National Joint Registry (NJR) elbow dataset and link it with NHS England Hospital Episode Statistics-Admitted Patient Care (HES-APC). It will include eligible patients from the start of the NJR elbow dataset in April 2012 to December 2022. The main objective is to determine the incidence of TER in England. Age-sex standardised rates will be calculated for groups including different ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, using the mid-year population data provided by the Office for National Statistics. This planned analysis will summarise patient characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hand dominance, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for TER, socioeconomic status, and patient co-morbidities. It will also examine implant fixation type, classification, brand/type, and changes over time in implant types used in England. Additionally, it will explore the characteristics and volume of the surgeons and hospitals providing primary TER services, including the grade of the primary surgeons, funding source for surgery, and admission type. The analysis will cover the number of procedures performed by surgeons and hospitals annually in England and in each region of England. Finally, the planned analysis will summarise the elective wait time, postoperative length of stay, and any serious adverse events or re-admissions within 30 and 90 days after the TER. Discussion This protocol describes the first deep dive analysis into the NJR elbow dataset to describe the incidence of TER surgery in England and the characteristics of patients who are receiving it. This analysis will summarise current primary TER practices in England before service reconfigurations. The impact of reconfiguration can be monitored by comparing future practice to the outcomes from this study. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06355011. Registered 02 April 2024, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06355011 .

Abstract Background Clinical prediction models (CPMs) predict the risk of health outcomes for individual patients. The majority of existing CPMs only harness cross-sectional patient information. Incorporating repeated measurements, such as those stored in electronic health records, into CPMs may provide an opportunity to enhance their performance. However, the number and complexity of methodological approaches available could make it difficult for researchers to explore this opportunity. Our objective was to review the literature and summarise existing approaches for harnessing repeated measurements of predictor variables in CPMs, primarily to make this field more accessible for applied researchers. Methods MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched for articles reporting the development of a multivariable CPM for individual-level prediction of future binary or time-to-event outcomes and modelling repeated measurements of at least one predictor. Information was extracted on the following: the methodology used, its specific aim, reported advantages and limitations, and software available to apply the method. Results The search revealed 217 relevant articles. Seven methodological frameworks were identified: time-dependent covariate modelling, generalised estimating equations, landmark analysis, two-stage modelling, joint-modelling, trajectory classification and machine learning. Each of these frameworks satisfies at least one of three aims: to better represent the predictor-outcome relationship over time, to infer a covariate value at a pre-specified time and to account for the effect of covariate change. Conclusions The applicability of identified methods depends on the motivation for including longitudinal information and the method’s compatibility with the clinical context and available patient data, for both model development and risk estimation in practice.

Abstract Background Propensity scores are widely used to deal with confounding bias in medical research. An incorrectly specified propensity score model may lead to residual confounding bias; therefore it is essential to use diagnostics to assess propensity scores in a propensity score analysis. The current use of propensity score diagnostics in the medical literature is unknown. The objectives of this study are to (1) assess the use of propensity score diagnostics in medical studies published in high-ranking journals, and (2) assess whether the use of propensity score diagnostics differs between studies (a) in different research areas and (b) using different propensity score methods. Methods A PubMed search identified studies published in high-impact journals between Jan 1st 2014 and Dec 31st 2016 using propensity scores to answer an applied medical question. From each study we extracted information regarding how propensity scores were assessed and which propensity score method was used. Research area was defined using the journal categories from the Journal Citations Report. Results A total of 894 papers were included in the review. Of these, 187 (20.9%) failed to report whether the propensity score had been assessed. Commonly reported diagnostics were p-values from hypothesis tests (36.6%) and the standardised mean difference (34.6%). Statistical tests provided marginally stronger evidence for a difference in diagnostic use between studies in different research areas (p = 0.033) than studies using different propensity score methods (p = 0.061). Conclusions The use of diagnostics in the propensity score medical literature is far from optimal, with different diagnostics preferred in different areas of medicine. The propensity score literature may improve with focused efforts to change practice in areas where suboptimal practice is most common.

Abstract Background Indirect muscle injuries (IMIs) are a considerable burden to elite football (soccer) teams, and prevention of these injuries offers many benefits. Preseason medical, musculoskeletal and performance screening (termed periodic health examination (PHE)) can be used to help determine players at risk of injuries such as IMIs, where identification of PHE-derived prognostic factors (PF) may inform IMI prevention strategies. Furthermore, using several PFs in combination within a multivariable prognostic model may allow individualised IMI risk estimation and specific targeting of prevention strategies, based upon an individual’s PF profile. No such models have been developed in elite football and the current IMI prognostic factor evidence is limited. This study aims to (1) develop and internally validate a prognostic model for individualised IMI risk prediction within a season in elite footballers, using the extent of the prognostic evidence and clinical reasoning; and (2) explore potential PHE-derived PFs associated with IMI outcomes in elite footballers, using available PHE data from a professional team. Methods This is a protocol for a retrospective cohort study. PHE and injury data were routinely collected over 5 seasons (1 July 2013 to 19 May 2018), from a population of elite male players aged 16–40 years old. Of 60 candidate PFs, 15 were excluded. Twelve variables (derived from 10 PFs) will be included in model development that were identified from a systematic review, missing data assessment, measurement reliability evaluation and clinical reasoning. A full multivariable logistic regression model will be fitted, to ensure adjustment before backward elimination. The performance and internal validation of the model will be assessed. The remaining 35 candidate PFs are eligible for further exploration, using univariable logistic regression to obtain unadjusted risk estimates. Exploratory PFs will also be incorporated into multivariable logistic regression models to determine risk estimates whilst adjusting for age, height and body weight. Discussion This study will offer insights into clinical usefulness of a model to predict IMI risk in elite football and highlight the practicalities of model development in this setting. Further exploration may identify other relevant PFs for future confirmatory studies and model updating, or influence future injury prevention research.

Abstract Background Patients with SLE display marked clinical and immunlogical heterogeneity. The purpose of the study was to investigate patterns of serum cytokines in patients with active and stable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to determine how they relate to clinical phenotype. Methods Serum levels of 10 cytokines were measured retrospectively in a cohort of patients with SLE and in healthy controls using a high-sensitivity multiplex bead array. Disease activity was determined using the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG-2004) indices. Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between cytokine levels and active SLE. Principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis was then used to identify subgroups of patients on the basis of cytokine levels. Results Serum chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 10 (CXCL10) and CXCL13 were significantly higher in patients with SLE compared to healthy controls. Two cytokines (pentraxin-related protein (PTX3) and CXCL10) were significantly higher in patients with active disease after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Measurement of four cytokines (CXCL10, IL-10, IL-21 and PTX3) significantly improved the performance of a model to identify patients with clinically active disease. Cluster analysis revealed that the patients formed 3 distinct groups, characterised by higher levels of interferon alpha (IFNα) and B lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS) (group 1), increased CXCL10 and CXCL13 (group 2) or low levels of cytokines (group 3). Group 2 had significantly lower serum complement and higher anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies and increased prevalence of inflammatory arthritis. Conclusions Multiplex analysis has identified a serum cytokine signature for active SLE. Within the SLE population distinct cytokine subgroups were identified, with differing clinical and immunological phenotypes that appeared stable over time. Assessment of cytokine profiles may reveal unique insights into disease heterogeneity.

Abstract Background Methotrexate (MTX) remains the disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug of first choice in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but response varies. Predicting non-response to MTX could enable earlier access to alternative or additional medications and control of disease progression. We aimed to identify baseline predictors of non-response to MTX and combine these into a prediction algorithm. Methods This study included patients recruited to the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS), a UK multi-centre prospective observational study of patients with RA or undifferentiated polyarthritis, commencing MTX for the first time. Non-response to MTX at 6 months was defined as “no response” using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, discontinuation of MTX due to inefficacy or starting biologic therapy. The association of baseline demographic, clinical and psychosocial predictors with non-response was assessed using logistic regression. Predictive performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots. Results Of 1050 patients, 449 (43%) were classified as non-responders. Independent multivariable predictors of MTX non-response (OR (95% CI)) were rheumatoid factor (RF) negativity (0.62 (0.45, 0.86) for RF positivity versus negativity), higher Health Assessment Questionnaire score (1.64 (1.25, 2.15)), higher tender joint count (1.06 (1.02, 1.10)), lower Disease Activity score in 28 joints (0.29 (0.23, 0.39)) and higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety score (1.07 (1.03, 1.12)). The optimism-corrected AUC was 0.74. Conclusions This is the first model for MTX non-response to be developed in a large contemporary study of patients commencing MTX in which demographic, clinical and psychosocial predictors were considered. Patient anxiety was a predictor of non-response and could be addressed at treatment commencement.

Abstract Background Oral methotrexate (MTX) is the first-line therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, approximately one quarter of patients discontinue MTX within 12 months. MTX failure, defined as MTX cessation or the addition of another anti-rheumatic drug, is usually due adverse event(s) and/or inefficacy. The aims of this study were to evaluate the rate and predictors of oral MTX failure. Methods Subjects were recruited from the Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR), a primary care-based inception cohort of patients with early inflammatory polyarthritis (IP). Subjects were eligible if they commenced MTX as their first DMARD and were recruited between 2000 and 2008. Patient-reported reasons for MTX failure were recorded and categorised as adverse event, inefficacy or other. The addition of a second DMARD during the study period was categorised as failure due to inefficacy. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess potential predictors of MTX failure, accounting for competing risks. Results A total of 431 patients were eligible. The probability of patients remaining on MTX at 2 years was 82%. Competing risk analysis revealed that earlier MTX failure due to inefficacy was associated with rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity, younger age at symptom onset and higher baseline disease activity (DAS-28). MTX cessation due to an adverse event was less likely in the RF-positive cohort. Conclusions RF-positive inflammatory polyarthritis patients who are younger with higher baseline disease activity have an increased risk of MTX failure due to inefficacy. Such patients may require combination therapy as a first-line treatment.

Abstract Background High mammographic density is associated with both risk of cancers being missed at mammography, and increased risk of developing breast cancer. Stratification of breast cancer prevention and screening requires mammographic density measures predictive of cancer. This study compares five mammographic density measures to determine the association with subsequent diagnosis of breast cancer and the presence of breast cancer at screening. Methods Women participating in the “Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening” (PROCAS) study, a study of cancer risk, completed questionnaires to provide personal information to enable computation of the Tyrer-Cuzick risk score. Mammographic density was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), thresholding (Cumulus) and fully-automated methods (Densitas, Quantra, Volpara) in contralateral breasts of 366 women with unilateral breast cancer (cases) detected at screening on entry to the study (Cumulus 311/366) and in 338 women with cancer detected subsequently. Three controls per case were matched using age, body mass index category, hormone replacement therapy use and menopausal status. Odds ratios (OR) between the highest and lowest quintile, based on the density distribution in controls, for each density measure were estimated by conditional logistic regression, adjusting for classic risk factors. Results The strongest predictor of screen-detected cancer at study entry was VAS, OR 4.37 (95% CI 2.72–7.03) in the highest vs lowest quintile of percent density after adjustment for classical risk factors. Volpara, Densitas and Cumulus gave ORs for the highest vs lowest quintile of 2.42 (95% CI 1.56–3.78), 2.17 (95% CI 1.41–3.33) and 2.12 (95% CI 1.30–3.45), respectively. Quantra was not significantly associated with breast cancer (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67–1.54). Similar results were found for subsequent cancers, with ORs of 4.48 (95% CI 2.79–7.18), 2.87 (95% CI 1.77–4.64) and 2.34 (95% CI 1.50–3.68) in highest vs lowest quintiles of VAS, Volpara and Densitas, respectively. Quantra gave an OR in the highest vs lowest quintile of 1.32 (95% CI 0.85–2.05). Conclusions Visual density assessment demonstrated a strong relationship with cancer, despite known inter-observer variability; however, it is impractical for population-based screening. Percentage density measured by Volpara and Densitas also had a strong association with breast cancer risk, amongst the automated measures evaluated, providing practical automated methods for risk stratification.

Abstract Background Having an appropriate sample size is important when developing a clinical prediction model. We aimed to review how sample size is considered in studies developing a prediction model for a binary outcome. Methods We searched PubMed for studies published between 01/07/2020 and 30/07/2020 and reviewed the sample size calculations used to develop the prediction models. Using the available information, we calculated the minimum sample size that would be needed to estimate overall risk and minimise overfitting in each study and summarised the difference between the calculated and used sample size. Results A total of 119 studies were included, of which nine studies provided sample size justification (8%). The recommended minimum sample size could be calculated for 94 studies: 73% (95% CI: 63–82%) used sample sizes lower than required to estimate overall risk and minimise overfitting including 26% studies that used sample sizes lower than required to estimate overall risk only. A similar number of studies did not meet the ≥ 10EPV criteria (75%, 95% CI: 66–84%). The median deficit of the number of events used to develop a model was 75 [IQR: 234 lower to 7 higher]) which reduced to 63 if the total available data (before any data splitting) was used [IQR:225 lower to 7 higher]. Studies that met the minimum required sample size had a median c-statistic of 0.84 (IQR:0.80 to 0.9) and studies where the minimum sample size was not met had a median c-statistic of 0.83 (IQR: 0.75 to 0.9). Studies that met the ≥ 10 EPP criteria had a median c-statistic of 0.80 (IQR: 0.73 to 0.84). Conclusions Prediction models are often developed with no sample size calculation, as a consequence many are too small to precisely estimate the overall risk. We encourage researchers to justify, perform and report sample size calculations when developing a prediction model.