Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27228230›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2016

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.

Ola Rolfson, Eric Bohm, Patricia Franklin, Stephen Lyman, Geke Denissen, Jill Dawson, Jennifer Dunn, Kate Eresian Chenok, Michael Dunbar, Søren Overgaard and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03008967 (A Prospective Cohort Study of Patients Undergoing Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty at a Regional Hospital in Denmark), which is not on this map. Cited by 162 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
162citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03008967 completednot on this map

A Prospective Cohort Study of Patients Undergoing Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty at a Regional Hospital in Denmark

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorBornholms RegionskommuneRan2016 to 2018Enrolled110ConditionsArthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipArmsArthroplasty and postoperative rehabilitation.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

162 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Translating clinical and patient-reported data to tailored shared decision reports with predictive analytics for knee and hip arthritis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

102 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Ola Rolfsona Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg , Gothenburg , Sweden ;
Eric Bohmb Canadian Joint Replacement Registry and University of Manitoba , Winnipeg , Manitoba , Canada ;
Patricia Franklinc FORCE-TJR and University of Massachusetts Medical School , Worcester , MA , USA ;
Stephen Lymand Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medical College , New York , NY , USA ;
Geke Denissene Dutch Arthroplasty Register , Hertogenbosch , the Netherlands ;
Jill Dawsonf Nuffield Department of Population Health and University of Oxford . Oxford , UK ;
Jennifer Dunng New Zealand Joint Registry and University of Otago , Christchurch , New Zealand ;
Kate Eresian Chenokh California Joint Replacement Registry , San Francisco , CA , USA ;
Michael Dunbari Canadian Joint Replacement Registry and Dalhousie University , Halifax , Nova Scotia , Canada ;
Søren Overgaardj Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register and University of Southern Denmark , Odense , Denmark ;
Göran Garellicka Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg , Gothenburg , Sweden ;
Anne Lübbekek Geneva Arthroplasty Registry, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery , Geneva University Hospitals , Geneva , Switzerland.
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries

Funding

Improving Orthopedic Outcomes Through a National TJR RegistryP50HS018910 · AHRQ · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI FRANKLIN, PATRICIA D · 2010 to 2013
$11.9M
AHRQ HHS P50 HS018910
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeHumansQuality of LifeRegistriesSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID27228230
PMCPMC4937770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.