ArticleTrials2019
The impact of surgeon and patient treatment preferences in an orthopaedic trauma surgery trial.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022Pooled it
- Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Causal Forests Versus Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting to Adjust for Cluster-Level Confounding: A Parametric and Plasmode Simulation Study Based on US Hospital Electronic Health Record Data.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Review
- The death of a neurotrauma trial lessons learned from the prematurely halted randomized evaluation of surgery in elderly with traumatic acute subdural hematoma (RESET-ASDH) trial.Brain & spine · 2024Article
- Computed Tomography Does Not Improve Intra- and Interobserver Agreement of Hertel Radiographic Prognostic Criteria.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: A survey exploring clinical equipoise among surgical members of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society.Shoulder & elbow · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.