Trial reportBMJ open2015
The effectiveness of providing peer benchmarked feedback to hip replacement surgeons based on patient-reported outcome measures--results from the PROFILE (Patient-Reported Outcomes: Feedback Interpretation and Learning Experiment) trial: a cluster randomised controlled study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The use of patient-reported outcome measures to improve patient-related outcomes - a systematic review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for future clinical trials in adult patients with optic neuritis.Eye (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Use of Parent- and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Pediatric Specialty Clinics: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- [Patient reported outcome measurements in orthopedics and trauma surgery : Chances and risks for statutory quality assurance].Der Unfallchirurg · 2020Review
- Measurement of patient reported disability using WHODAS 2.0 before and after surgical intervention in Madagascar.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Concordance between patient-reported and physician-reported sexual function after radical prostatectomy.Urologic oncology · 2018Article
- Article
- Sustainability of using the WHO surgical safety checklist: a mixed-methods longitudinal evaluation following a nationwide blended educational implementation strategy in Madagascar.BMJ global health · 2018Article
- An alternative approach to implementing patient-reported outcome measures.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Article
- The Role of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Value-Based Payment Reform.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2017Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Using Patient-reported Outcomes in Quality Measurement in Rheumatology.Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test whether providing surgeons with peer benchmarked feedback about patient-reported outcomes is effective in improving patient outcomes.
designCluster randomised controlled trial.
settingSecondary care--Ireland.
participantsSurgeons were recruited through the Irish Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, and patients were recruited in hospitals prior to surgery. We randomly allocated 21 surgeons and 550 patients.
interventionSurgeons in the intervention group received peer benchmarked patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) feedback and education. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: Postoperative Oxford Hip Score (OHS).
resultsPrimary outcome data were available for 11 intervention surgeons with responsibility for 230 patients and 10 control surgeons with responsibility for 228 patients. The mean postoperative OHS for the intervention group was 40.8 (95% CI 39.8 to 41.7) and for the control group was 41.9 (95% CI 41.1 to 42.7). The adjusted effect estimate was -1.1 (95% CI -2.4 to 0.2, p=0.09). Secondary outcomes were the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), EQ-5D and the proportion of patients reporting a problem after surgery. The mean postoperative HOOS for the intervention group was 36.2 and for the control group was 37.1. The adjusted effect estimate was -1.1 (95% CI -2.4 to 0.3, p=0.1). The mean postoperative EQ-5D for the intervention group was 0.85 and for the control group was 0.87. The adjusted effect estimate was -0.02 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.008, p=0.2). 27% of intervention patients and 24% of control patients reported at least one complication after surgery (adjusted OR=1.2, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.3, p=0.6).
conclusionsOutcomes for patients operated on by surgeons who had received peer benchmarked PROMs data were not statistically different from the outcomes of patients operated on by surgeons who did not receive feedback. PROMs information alone seems to be insufficient to identify opportunities for quality improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 69032522.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.