Back to Search Start Over

Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries.

Authors :
ROLFSON, Ola
BOHM, Eric
FRANKLIN, Patricia
LYMAN, Stephen
DENISSEN, Geke
DAWSON, Jill
DUNN, Jennifer
CHENOK, Kate Eresian
DUNBAR, Michael
OVERGAARD, Søren
GARELLICK, Göran
LÜBBEKE, Anne
Source :
Acta Orthopaedica (Supplement); 2016 Supplement 362, Vol. 87, p9-23, 15p, 2 Charts
Publication Year :
2016

Abstract

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
17453690
Volume :
87
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
Acta Orthopaedica (Supplement)
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
116153318
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816