Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries

Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty RegistriesPart II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis

Ola Rolfson, Eric Bohm, Patricia Franklin, Leonard Lyman Stephen, Geke Denissen, Jill Dawson, Jennifer Dunn, Kate Eresian Chenok, Michael Dunbar, Søren Overgaard, Göran Garellick, Anne Lübbeke

研究成果: ジャーナルへの寄稿記事

49 引用 (Scopus)

抄録

— 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.

元の言語英語
ページ(範囲)9-23
ページ数15
ジャーナルActa Orthopaedica
87
DOI
出版物ステータス出版済み - 6 15 2016

Fingerprint

Arthroplasty
Registries
Risk Adjustment
Hip
Pain
Documentation
Health Status
Knee
Joints
Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
Arthralgia
Health Surveys
Practice Guidelines
Sample Size
Patient Reported Outcome Measures

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

これを引用

Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries : Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty RegistriesPart II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. / Rolfson, Ola; Bohm, Eric; Franklin, Patricia; Lyman Stephen, Leonard; Denissen, Geke; Dawson, Jill; Dunn, Jennifer; Eresian Chenok, Kate; Dunbar, Michael; Overgaard, Søren; Garellick, Göran; Lübbeke, Anne.

:: Acta Orthopaedica, 巻 87, 15.06.2016, p. 9-23.

研究成果: ジャーナルへの寄稿記事

Rolfson, Ola ; Bohm, Eric ; Franklin, Patricia ; Lyman Stephen, Leonard ; 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 RegistriesPart II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. :: Acta Orthopaedica. 2016 ; 巻 87. pp. 9-23.
@article{df8b63fc2e404045a813758bbd537457,
title = "Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty RegistriesPart 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 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.",
author = "Ola Rolfson and Eric Bohm and Patricia Franklin and {Lyman Stephen}, Leonard and Geke Denissen and Jill Dawson and Jennifer Dunn and {Eresian Chenok}, Kate and Michael Dunbar and S{\o}ren Overgaard and G{\"o}ran Garellick and Anne L{\"u}bbeke",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816",
language = "English",
volume = "87",
pages = "9--23",
journal = "Acta Orthopaedica",
issn = "1745-3674",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",

}

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 RegistriesPart II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis

AU - Rolfson, Ola

AU - Bohm, Eric

AU - Franklin, Patricia

AU - Lyman Stephen, Leonard

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 - 2016/6/15

Y1 - 2016/6/15

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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84969902599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84969902599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816

DO - 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816

M3 - Article

VL - 87

SP - 9

EP - 23

JO - Acta Orthopaedica

JF - Acta Orthopaedica

SN - 1745-3674

ER -