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
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
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.
I: Acta Orthopaedica, Bind 87, Nr. Suppl 1, 2016, s. 9-23.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries
T2 - Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis
AU - Rolfson, Ola
AU - Bohm, Eric
AU - Franklin, Patricia
AU - Lyman, Stephen
AU - Denissen, Geke
AU - Dawson, Jill
AU - Dunn, Jennifer
AU - Eresian Chenok, Kate
AU - Dunbar, Michael
AU - Overgaard, Søren
AU - Garellick, Göran
AU - Lübbeke, Anne
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816
DO - 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 27228230
VL - 87
SP - 9
EP - 23
JO - Acta Orthopaedica
JF - Acta Orthopaedica
SN - 1745-3674
IS - Suppl 1
ER -
ID: 252050123