Generalizability of the Progressive Resistance Training versus Total Hip Arthroplasty (PROHIP) trial: a cross-sectional study of 402 patients in Denmark
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44756Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Exercise, Hip, OsteoarthritisAbstract
Background and purpose: There is ongoing debate over whether results from randomized trials assigning patients to surgery or first-line treatment can be generalized to clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to compare patients with hip osteoarthritis accepting enrollment in the Progressive Resistance Training versus Total Hip Arthroplasty (PROHIP) trial in Denmark with those declining (enrolled in an observational cohort [non-PROHIP]).
Methods: We used a cross-sectional study design to compare demographics and patient-reported outcomes among patients eligible for enrollment in the PROHIP trial. We used the standardized difference (StdDiff), the absolute difference with 95% confidence interval (CI), and the propensity (odds ratio [OR]) of accepting participation in the PROHIP trial to assess imbalances between groups. We pre-specified that StdDiff values < 0.2 indicated a negligible difference, whereas values ≥ 0.8 indicated incomparability.
Results: 402 patients were included, with 109 in the PROHIP trial and 293 in the non-PROHIP cohort. Patients enrolled in the PROHIP trial had a mean (standard deviation [SD]) Oxford Hip Score at baseline of 25.1 (SD 5.9) compared with 22.6 (SD 6.9) in the non-PROHIP cohort (between-group difference, 2.5 points [CI 1.1–4.0], StdDiff 0.4, OR 1.06 [CI 1.02–1.10]). This pattern was consistent across almost all secondary patient-reported outcomes applied in the PROHIP trial. For most demographic variables, there were negligible between-group differences at baseline.
Conclusion: We found minimal imbalances in some baseline demographic variables and most patient-reported outcomes, with those who accepted enrollment in the PROHIP trial having more favorable outcomes at recruitment than those who declined. However, most differences were not clinically important.
Downloads
References
Ferguson R J, Palmer A J, Taylor A, Porter M L, Malchau H, Glyn-Jones S. Hip replacement. Lancet 2018; 392: 1662-71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31777-X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31777-X
Fu M, Zhou H, Li Y, Jin H, Liu X. Global, regional, and national burdens of hip osteoarthritis from 1990 to 2019: estimates from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Study. Arthritis Res Ther 2022; 24: 8. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02705-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-021-02705-6
Blom A W, Donovan R L, Beswick A D, Whitehouse M R, Kunutsor S K. Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: umbrella review of level 1 evidence. BMJ 2021; 374: n1511. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1511
Gibbs A J, Gray B, Wallis J A, Taylor N F, Kemp J L, Hunter D J, et al. Recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2023; 31: 1280-92. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2023.05.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2023.05.015
Frydendal T, Christensen R, Mechlenburg I, Mikkelsen L R, Varnum C, Graversen A E, et al. Total hip replacement or resistance training for severe hip osteoarthritis. N Engl J Med 2024; 391: 1610-20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2400141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2400141
Frobell R B, Roos E M, Roos H P, Ranstam J, Lohmander L S. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 331-42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0907797
Skou S T, Hölmich P, Lind M, Jensen H P, Jensen C, Garval M, et al. Early surgery or exercise and education for meniscal tears in young adults. NEJM Evidence 2022; 1. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2100038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2100038
Skou S T, Roos E M, Laursen M B, Rathleff M S, Arendt-Nielsen L, Simonsen O, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1597-1606. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1505467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1505467
van Deudekom F J, Postmus I, van der Ham D J, Pothof A B, Broekhuizen K, Blauw G J, et al. External validity of randomized controlled trials in older adults, a systematic review. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0174053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174053
Rothwell P M. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet 2005; 365: 82-93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8
Frydendal T, Christensen R, Mechlenburg I, Mikkelsen L R, Overgaard S, Ingwersen K G. Total hip arthroplasty versus progressive resistance training in patients with severe hip osteoarthritis: protocol for a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e051392. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051392
Paulsen A, Odgaard A, Overgaard S. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish version of the Oxford hip score: assessed against generic and disease-specific questionnaires. Bone Joint Res 2012; 1: 225-33. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.19.2000076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.19.2000076
Beard D J, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray D W, Carr A J, et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 73-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009
Nilsdotter A K, Lohmander L S, Klassbo M, Roos E M. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS): validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003; 4: 10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-4-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-4-10
Mørup-Petersen A, Skou S T, Holm C E, Holm P M, Varnum C, Krogsgaard M R, et al. Measurement properties of UCLA Activity Scale for hip and knee arthroplasty patients and translation and cultural adaptation into Danish. Acta Orthop 2021; 92: 681-8. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1977533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1977533
Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 29-33. doi: 10.1136/ard.2004.022905. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2004.022905
Conner-Spady B L, Marshall D A, Bohm E, Dunbar M J, Noseworthy T W. Comparing the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L to the Oxford hip and knee scores and SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients 1 year following total joint replacement. Qual Life Res 2018; 27: 1311-1322. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1808-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1808-5
Christensen R, Ranstam J, Overgaard S, Wagner P. Guidelines for a structured manuscript: statistical methods and reporting in biomedical research journals. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 243-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.11656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.11656
Austin P C. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009; 28: 3083-3107. doi: 10.1002/sim.3697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3697
Ingelsrud L H, Wilkinson J M, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, Hallstrom B, Navarro R A, et al. How do patient-reported outcome scores in international hip and knee arthroplasty registries compare? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022; 480: 1884-1896. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002306
Harris L K, Troelsen A, Terluin B, Gromov K, Overgaard S, Price A, et al. Interpretation threshold values for the Oxford hip score in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: advancing their clinical use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2023; 105: 797-804. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.22.01293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.22.01293
Frydendal T, Thomsen K S, Mechlenburg I, Mikkelsen L R, Overgaard S, Ingwersen K G, et al. Patient and public involvement to inform the protocol of a clinical trial comparing total hip arthroplasty with exercise: an exploratory qualitative case study. BMJ Open 2023; 13: e070866. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070866. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070866
Crocker J C, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst J A, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2018; 363: k4738. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4738. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4738
Fleury M E, Farner A M, Unger J M. Association of the COVID-19 outbreak with patient willingness to enroll in cancer clinical trials. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7: 131-2. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5748. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.5748
Hagen K B, Smedslund G, Østerås N, Jamtvedt G. Quality of community-based osteoarthritis care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016; 68: 1443-52. doi: 10.1002/acr.22891. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22891
Dobson F, Hinman R S, Roos E M, Abbott J H, Stratford P, Davis A M, et al. OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21: 1042-52. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.002
Smith T O, Hawker G A, Hunter D J, March L M, Boers M, Shea B J, et al. The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for measurement in clinical trials of hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2019; 46: 981-9. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.181194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kez108.060
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Thomas Frydendal, Robin Christensen, Inger Mechlenburg, Lone Ramer Mikkelsen, Claus Varnum, Manuel Josef Bieder, Stig Storgaard Jakobsen, Søren Overgaard, Kim Gordon Ingwersen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
