Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries.

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Acta Orthopaedica Vol. 87; pp. 9 - 24
Autores principales: Rolfson, Ola, Bohm, Eric, Franklin, Patricia, Lyman, Stephen, Denissen, Geke, Dawson, Jill, Dunn, Jennifer, Eresian Chenok, Kate, Dunbar, Michael, Overgaard, Søren, Garellick, Göran, Lübbeke, Anne
Formato: tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Medical Journals Sweden AB Jul2016 Supplement
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=116145383&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 116145383
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        17453674
        1BVL
      jtl: Acta Orthopaedica
      issn: 17453674
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2016 Supplement
      vid: 87
      pid: 59195
      pub: Medical Journals Sweden AB
    artinfo:
      ui:
        116145383
        116145383
        116145383
        10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816
        116145383
      ppf: 9
      ppct: 15
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries.
      aug:
        au:
          Rolfson, Ola
          Bohm, Eric
          Franklin, Patricia
          Lyman, Stephen
          Denissen, Geke
          Dawson, Jill
          Dunn, Jennifer
          Eresian Chenok, Kate
          Dunbar, Michael
          Overgaard, Søren
          Garellick, Göran
          Lübbeke, Anne
        affil: Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
      sug:
        subj:
          Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
          Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
          Outcome Assessment
          Registries, Disease
          Outcomes (Health Care)
          Pain Measurement
          Patient Satisfaction
          Documentation
      ab: 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.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N