Cargando…

Two-Year Recall Bias After ACL Reconstruction Is Affected by Clinical Result

Recall bias is a systematic error caused by inaccuracy in reporting past health status and can be a substantial methodological flaw in the retrospective collection of data. Little is known about recall bias following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Randsborg, Per-Henrik, Adamec, Dakota, Cepeda, Nicholas A., Ling, Daphne I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8352625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34386686
http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.20.00164
_version_ 1783736222730944512
author Randsborg, Per-Henrik
Adamec, Dakota
Cepeda, Nicholas A.
Ling, Daphne I.
author_facet Randsborg, Per-Henrik
Adamec, Dakota
Cepeda, Nicholas A.
Ling, Daphne I.
author_sort Randsborg, Per-Henrik
collection PubMed
description Recall bias is a systematic error caused by inaccuracy in reporting past health status and can be a substantial methodological flaw in the retrospective collection of data. Little is known about recall bias following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients’ recall bias regarding preinjury knee function at 2 years after ACLR. METHODS: Patients undergoing ACLR were enrolled in an institutional ACL registry. Preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively, patients quantified their preinjury knee function on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 = best). Recall bias was quantified as the difference in the reported preinjury function between the 2 time points. The clinical result of ACLR was evaluated according to the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation score. Patients meeting the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the IKDC score were considered to have had a good outcome, while patients who did not reach the MCID were considered to have had failure of treatment. Recall bias was compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Of 2,109 patients enrolled in the registry, 1,219 were included in the study. Patients with a good outcome remembered their preinjury knee function on a 0-to-10 scale to be better than what they reported at baseline, by a mean difference of 0.40 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.58 points). The recall bias was stronger for patients with a poor outcome, who remembered their knee function to be worse than reported at baseline, by a mean difference of −0.81 (95% CI, −1.4 to −0.26). The mean difference in recall between the 2 groups was −1.21 (95% CI, −1.74 to −0.67) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The recall bias of preinjury knee function following ACLR was small and not clinically meaningful for the majority of patients. However, patients with a poor outcome had a clinically relevant and significant recall bias. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings suggest that patients with a poor outcome have a substantial recall bias. This has clinical relevance when considering treatment effects of revision surgery, whereby the clinical benefit of the treatment might be affected by recall bias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8352625
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83526252021-08-11 Two-Year Recall Bias After ACL Reconstruction Is Affected by Clinical Result Randsborg, Per-Henrik Adamec, Dakota Cepeda, Nicholas A. Ling, Daphne I. JB JS Open Access Scientific Articles Recall bias is a systematic error caused by inaccuracy in reporting past health status and can be a substantial methodological flaw in the retrospective collection of data. Little is known about recall bias following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients’ recall bias regarding preinjury knee function at 2 years after ACLR. METHODS: Patients undergoing ACLR were enrolled in an institutional ACL registry. Preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively, patients quantified their preinjury knee function on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 = best). Recall bias was quantified as the difference in the reported preinjury function between the 2 time points. The clinical result of ACLR was evaluated according to the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation score. Patients meeting the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the IKDC score were considered to have had a good outcome, while patients who did not reach the MCID were considered to have had failure of treatment. Recall bias was compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Of 2,109 patients enrolled in the registry, 1,219 were included in the study. Patients with a good outcome remembered their preinjury knee function on a 0-to-10 scale to be better than what they reported at baseline, by a mean difference of 0.40 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.58 points). The recall bias was stronger for patients with a poor outcome, who remembered their knee function to be worse than reported at baseline, by a mean difference of −0.81 (95% CI, −1.4 to −0.26). The mean difference in recall between the 2 groups was −1.21 (95% CI, −1.74 to −0.67) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The recall bias of preinjury knee function following ACLR was small and not clinically meaningful for the majority of patients. However, patients with a poor outcome had a clinically relevant and significant recall bias. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings suggest that patients with a poor outcome have a substantial recall bias. This has clinical relevance when considering treatment effects of revision surgery, whereby the clinical benefit of the treatment might be affected by recall bias. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. 2021-03-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8352625/ /pubmed/34386686 http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.20.00164 Text en Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Scientific Articles
Randsborg, Per-Henrik
Adamec, Dakota
Cepeda, Nicholas A.
Ling, Daphne I.
Two-Year Recall Bias After ACL Reconstruction Is Affected by Clinical Result
title Two-Year Recall Bias After ACL Reconstruction Is Affected by Clinical Result
title_full Two-Year Recall Bias After ACL Reconstruction Is Affected by Clinical Result
title_fullStr Two-Year Recall Bias After ACL Reconstruction Is Affected by Clinical Result
title_full_unstemmed Two-Year Recall Bias After ACL Reconstruction Is Affected by Clinical Result
title_short Two-Year Recall Bias After ACL Reconstruction Is Affected by Clinical Result
title_sort two-year recall bias after acl reconstruction is affected by clinical result
topic Scientific Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8352625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34386686
http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.20.00164
work_keys_str_mv AT randsborgperhenrik twoyearrecallbiasafteraclreconstructionisaffectedbyclinicalresult
AT adamecdakota twoyearrecallbiasafteraclreconstructionisaffectedbyclinicalresult
AT cepedanicholasa twoyearrecallbiasafteraclreconstructionisaffectedbyclinicalresult
AT lingdaphnei twoyearrecallbiasafteraclreconstructionisaffectedbyclinicalresult