Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31533863›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

The impact of surgeon and patient treatment preferences in an orthopaedic trauma surgery trial.

Ada Keding, Helen Handoll, Stephen Brealey, Laura Jefferson, Catherine Hewitt, Belen Corbacho, David Torgerson, Amar Rangan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A review of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ada KedingYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD, UK. ada.keding@york.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1182-887X
Helen HandollSchool of Health and Social Care, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, Tees Valley, TS1 3BA, UK.
Stephen BrealeyYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD, UK.
Laura JeffersonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD, UK.
Catherine HewittYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD, UK.
Belen CorbachoYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD, UK.
David TorgersonYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD, UK.
Amar RanganYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, YO10 5DD, UK.
University of York · GBJames Cook University Hospital · GBTeesside University · GB

Funding

Department of Health 06/404/502Department of Health 06/404/53Health Technology Assessment Programme 06/404/53
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgeon and patient treatment preferences are important threats to the internal and external validity of surgical trials such as PROFHER, which compared surgical versus non-surgical treatment for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus in adults. We explored the treatment preferences expressed by surgeons and patients in the trial and how these impacted on patient selection, trial conduct and patient outcome.

methodsA series of exploratory secondary analyses of the PROFHER trial data were undertaken. We reviewed the extent of surgeon and patient treatment preferences (surgery or not surgery) at screening (n = 1250) as well as prior preference (including no preference) of randomised patients (n = 250), and assessed their impact on recruitment and adherence to follow-up and rehabilitation. Changes in treatment after 2 years' follow-up were explored. Patient preference and characteristics associated with trial inclusion or treatment preference (t test, chi-squared test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) were included as treatment interaction terms in the primary trial analysis of shoulder functioning (Oxford Shoulder Score, OSS).

resultsSurgeons excluded 17% of otherwise eligible patients based on lack of equipoise; these patients had less complex fractures (p < 0.001) and tended to be older (p = 0.062). Surgeons were more likely to recommend surgery for patients under 65 years of age (p = 0.059) and who had injured their right shoulder (p = 0.052). Over half of eligible patients (56%) did not consent to take part in the trial; these patients tended to be older (p = 0.022), with a preference for not surgery (74%; which was associated with older age, p = 0.039). There were no differential treatment effects (p value of interaction) for shoulder functioning (OSS) based on subgroups of patient preference (p = 0.751), age group (p = 0.264), fracture type (p = 0.954) and shoulder dominance (p = 0.850). Patients who were randomised to their preferred treatment had better follow-up rates (94 vs 84% at 2 years) and treatment adherence (90 vs 83% reported completing home exercises). Patients who were not randomised to their preferred treatment were more likely to change their treatment preference at 24 months (60 vs 26%).

conclusionsThe robustness of the PROFHER trial findings was confirmed against possible bias introduced by surgeon and patient preferences. The importance of collecting preference data is highlighted.

trial registrationISRCTN50850043 . Registered on 25 March 2008.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFracture FixationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient PreferencePatient SelectionAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsClinical Trials as TopicEligibility DeterminationFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceBiasEquipoiseNon-operativeOrthopaedicPatient preferenceProximal humeral fracturesRandomised controlled trialSurgeonsSurgeryValidity

Identifiers

PMID31533863
PMCPMC6751812
OpenAlexW2974193169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.