Cargando…
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
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937770/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27228230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816 |
_version_ | 1782441767533019136 |
---|---|
author | Rolfson, Ola Bohm, Eric Franklin, Patricia Lyman, Stephen Denissen, Geke Dawson, Jill Dunn, Jennifer Eresian Chenok, Kate Dunbar, Michael Overgaard, Søren Garellick, Göran Lübbeke, Anne |
author_facet | Rolfson, Ola Bohm, Eric Franklin, Patricia Lyman, Stephen Denissen, Geke Dawson, Jill Dunn, Jennifer Eresian Chenok, Kate Dunbar, Michael Overgaard, Søren Garellick, Göran Lübbeke, Anne |
author_sort | Rolfson, Ola |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4937770 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Taylor & Francis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49377702016-07-22 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 Rolfson, Ola Bohm, Eric Franklin, Patricia Lyman, Stephen Denissen, Geke Dawson, Jill Dunn, Jennifer Eresian Chenok, Kate Dunbar, Michael Overgaard, Søren Garellick, Göran Lübbeke, Anne Acta Orthop Articles 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. Taylor & Francis 2016-07 2016-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4937770/ /pubmed/27228230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816 Text en © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) |
spellingShingle | Articles Rolfson, Ola Bohm, Eric Franklin, Patricia Lyman, Stephen Denissen, Geke Dawson, Jill Dunn, Jennifer Eresian Chenok, Kate Dunbar, Michael Overgaard, Søren Garellick, Göran Lübbeke, Anne 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 |
title | 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 |
title_full | 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 |
title_fullStr | 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 |
title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
title_short | 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 |
title_sort | 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 |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937770/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27228230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rolfsonola patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT bohmeric patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT franklinpatricia patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT lymanstephen patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT denissengeke patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT dawsonjill patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT dunnjennifer patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT eresianchenokkate patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT dunbarmichael patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT overgaardsøren patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT garellickgoran patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT lubbekeanne patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis AT patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistriesreportofthepatientreportedoutcomemeasuresworkinggroupoftheinternationalsocietyofarthroplastyregistriespartiirecommendationsforselectionadministrationandanalysis |