Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31878874›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

A patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique for orthopaedic trauma research.

Ugochukwu N Udogwu, Andrea Howe, Katherine Frey, Marckenley Isaac, Daniel Connelly, Dimitrius Marinos, Mitchell Baker, Renan C Castillo, Gerard P Slobogean, Robert V O'Toole and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Ugochukwu N UdogwuDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Andrea HoweDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Katherine FreyDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Marckenley IsaacDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Daniel ConnellyDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Dimitrius MarinosDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Mitchell BakerDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Renan C CastilloDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Gerard P SlobogeanDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Robert V O'TooleDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Nathan N O'HaraDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St., Suite 300, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. nohara@som.umaryland.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0537-3474

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to address the current limitations of the use of composite endpoints in orthopaedic trauma research by quantifying the relative importance of clinical outcomes common to orthopaedic trauma patients and use those values to develop a patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique.

methodsA Best-Worst Scaling choice experiment was administered to 396 adult surgically-treated fracture patients. Respondents were presented with ten choice sets, each consisting of three out of ten plausible clinical outcomes. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to determine the utilities associated with the outcomes.

resultsDeath was the outcome of greatest importance (mean utility = - 8.91), followed by above knee amputation (- 7.66), below knee amputation (- 6.97), severe pain (- 5.90), deep surgical site infection (SSI) (- 5.69), bone healing complications (- 5.20), and moderate pain (- 4.59). Mild pain (- 3.30) and superficial SSI (- 3.29), on the other hand, were the outcomes of least importance to respondents.

conclusionThis study revealed that patients' relative importance towards clinical outcomes followed a logical gradient, with distinct and quantifiable preferences for each possible component outcome. These findings were incorporated into a novel composite endpoint weighting technique.

Indexed as

Fracture FixationHealth Services ResearchPatient-Centered CareResearch DesignAdultFemaleFractures, BoneHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareBest-worst scaling choice experimentComposite endpointFractureOrthopaedic traumaPatient-centered careStudy designWeighting technique

Identifiers

PMID31878874
PMCPMC6933647

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.