Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries
<p style="text-align:justify;">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 arthroplast...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor and Francis
2016
|
| _version_ | 1797104255461490688 |
|---|---|
| author | Rolfson, O Bohm, E Franklin, P Lyman, S Denissen, G Dawson, J Dunn, J Chenok, K Dunbar, M Overgaard, S Garellick, G Lubbeke, A |
| author_facet | Rolfson, O Bohm, E Franklin, P Lyman, S Denissen, G Dawson, J Dunn, J Chenok, K Dunbar, M Overgaard, S Garellick, G Lubbeke, A |
| author_sort | Rolfson, O |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p style="text-align:justify;">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. </p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T06:31:20Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:f616d0b0-56e8-472a-ba4a-d5a263833ecb |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T06:31:20Z |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publisher | Taylor and Francis |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:f616d0b0-56e8-472a-ba4a-d5a263833ecb2022-03-27T12:32:23ZPatient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registriesJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:f616d0b0-56e8-472a-ba4a-d5a263833ecbEnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordTaylor and Francis2016Rolfson, OBohm, EFranklin, PLyman, SDenissen, GDawson, JDunn, JChenok, KDunbar, MOvergaard, SGarellick, GLubbeke, A <p style="text-align:justify;">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. </p> |
| spellingShingle | Rolfson, O Bohm, E Franklin, P Lyman, S Denissen, G Dawson, J Dunn, J Chenok, K Dunbar, M Overgaard, S Garellick, G Lubbeke, A Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries |
| title | Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries |
| title_full | Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries |
| title_fullStr | Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries |
| title_full_unstemmed | Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries |
| title_short | Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries |
| title_sort | patient reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rolfsono patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT bohme patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT franklinp patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT lymans patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT denisseng patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT dawsonj patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT dunnj patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT chenokk patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT dunbarm patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT overgaards patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT garellickg patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries AT lubbekea patientreportedoutcomemeasuresinarthroplastyregistries |