Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries

Authors

  • Ola Rolfson
  • Eric Bohm
  • Patricia Franklin
  • Stephen Lyman
  • Geke Denissen
  • Jill Dawson
  • Jennifer Dunn
  • Kate Eresian Chenok
  • Michael Dunbar
  • Søren Overgaard
  • Göran Garellick
  • Anne Lübbeke
  • Authors Missing

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816

Abstract

Abstract — 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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2016-06-15

How to Cite

Rolfson, O., Bohm, E., Franklin, P., Lyman, S., Denissen, G., Dawson, J., … Missing, A. (2016). Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries. Acta Orthopaedica, 87(Sup362), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816