Cargando…

Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to examine whether the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) demonstrated a floor or a ceiling effect when used to measure the outcome of hip replacement surgery in a large national cohort. SETTING: Secondary database analysis of a national audit conducted in England and Wales on pati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lim, Christopher R, Harris, Kristina, Dawson, Jill, Beard, David J, Fitzpatrick, Ray, Price, Andrew J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4521553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26216152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007765
_version_ 1782383829193850880
author Lim, Christopher R
Harris, Kristina
Dawson, Jill
Beard, David J
Fitzpatrick, Ray
Price, Andrew J
author_facet Lim, Christopher R
Harris, Kristina
Dawson, Jill
Beard, David J
Fitzpatrick, Ray
Price, Andrew J
author_sort Lim, Christopher R
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The objective was to examine whether the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) demonstrated a floor or a ceiling effect when used to measure the outcome of hip replacement surgery in a large national cohort. SETTING: Secondary database analysis of a national audit conducted in England and Wales on patient undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty in a secondary care setting. PARTICIPANTS: 93 253 primary arthroplasty patients completed preoperative OHS questionnaires and 69 361 completed 6-month postoperative OHS questionnaires. The population had a mean age of 67.78 (range 14–100, SD 11.3) and 59% were female. PRIMARY SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was the Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Secondary outcome measures were the OHS-FCS and OHS-PCS. Floor and ceiling effects were considered present if >15% of patients achieved the worst score/floor effect (0/48) or best/ceiling effect (48/48) score. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 0% of patients achieved the best score (48) and 0.1% achieved the worst score (0). Postoperatively, 0.1% patients achieved the worst score, but the percentage achieving the best score increased to 11.6%. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients between 50 and 59 years of age had the highest postoperative best score, at 15.3%. The highest postoperative OHS worst score percentage was in a group of patients who had a preoperative OHS above 41/48 at 28%. Furthermore, 22.6% of patients achieved the best postoperative OHS-PCS and 19.9% best postoperative OHS-FCS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on NHS PROMS data the overall OHS does not exhibit a ceiling or floor effect and should continue to be used as a valid measure of patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. However, subscale analysis does indicate some limitations in the OHS-PCS and OHS-FCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NDORMS. Introducing standardised and evidence-based thresholds for hip and knee replacement surgery. The Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine (ACHE tool). HTA Project 11/63/01.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4521553
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45215532015-08-05 Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set Lim, Christopher R Harris, Kristina Dawson, Jill Beard, David J Fitzpatrick, Ray Price, Andrew J BMJ Open Surgery OBJECTIVES: The objective was to examine whether the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) demonstrated a floor or a ceiling effect when used to measure the outcome of hip replacement surgery in a large national cohort. SETTING: Secondary database analysis of a national audit conducted in England and Wales on patient undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty in a secondary care setting. PARTICIPANTS: 93 253 primary arthroplasty patients completed preoperative OHS questionnaires and 69 361 completed 6-month postoperative OHS questionnaires. The population had a mean age of 67.78 (range 14–100, SD 11.3) and 59% were female. PRIMARY SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was the Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Secondary outcome measures were the OHS-FCS and OHS-PCS. Floor and ceiling effects were considered present if >15% of patients achieved the worst score/floor effect (0/48) or best/ceiling effect (48/48) score. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 0% of patients achieved the best score (48) and 0.1% achieved the worst score (0). Postoperatively, 0.1% patients achieved the worst score, but the percentage achieving the best score increased to 11.6%. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients between 50 and 59 years of age had the highest postoperative best score, at 15.3%. The highest postoperative OHS worst score percentage was in a group of patients who had a preoperative OHS above 41/48 at 28%. Furthermore, 22.6% of patients achieved the best postoperative OHS-PCS and 19.9% best postoperative OHS-FCS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on NHS PROMS data the overall OHS does not exhibit a ceiling or floor effect and should continue to be used as a valid measure of patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. However, subscale analysis does indicate some limitations in the OHS-PCS and OHS-FCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NDORMS. Introducing standardised and evidence-based thresholds for hip and knee replacement surgery. The Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine (ACHE tool). HTA Project 11/63/01. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4521553/ /pubmed/26216152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007765 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Surgery
Lim, Christopher R
Harris, Kristina
Dawson, Jill
Beard, David J
Fitzpatrick, Ray
Price, Andrew J
Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set
title Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set
title_full Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set
title_fullStr Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set
title_full_unstemmed Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set
title_short Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set
title_sort floor and ceiling effects in the ohs: an analysis of the nhs proms data set
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4521553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26216152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007765
work_keys_str_mv AT limchristopherr floorandceilingeffectsintheohsananalysisofthenhspromsdataset
AT harriskristina floorandceilingeffectsintheohsananalysisofthenhspromsdataset
AT dawsonjill floorandceilingeffectsintheohsananalysisofthenhspromsdataset
AT bearddavidj floorandceilingeffectsintheohsananalysisofthenhspromsdataset
AT fitzpatrickray floorandceilingeffectsintheohsananalysisofthenhspromsdataset
AT priceandrewj floorandceilingeffectsintheohsananalysisofthenhspromsdataset