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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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