Arthroplasty studies with greater than 1000 participants: analysis of follow-up methods.

Arthroplasty Hip Knee Patient-reported outcomes

Journal

Arthroplasty today
ISSN: 2352-3441
Titre abrégé: Arthroplast Today
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101681808

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Historique:
received: 02 11 2018
revised: 20 03 2019
accepted: 21 03 2019
entrez: 10 7 2019
pubmed: 10 7 2019
medline: 10 7 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has become a mainstay of orthopedic joint arthroplasty research. Large studies with >1000 participants are vital to orthopedic research, as they allow for comprehensive multivariable analysis. Achieving high follow-up rates minimizes potential response bias. Maintaining adequate follow-up rates becomes more challenging as sample size increases. We aimed to systematically review the present literature to determine the follow-up rates of large cohorts/registries of total joint arthroplasty patients and to identify factors associated with successful collection of PROMs. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were: ≥1000 participants, ≥6 months of postoperative follow-up, and use of validated PROMs postoperatively. Of 720 abstracts screened, 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Only 2 studies reported achieving a PROM follow-up rate ≥80%, but neither collected PROMs preoperatively. The median rate of follow-up was 70%, and the median number of patients was 2970. Only 38% (8 of 21) of studies collected baseline PROMs prior to surgery. Very few studies in the present literature have collected validated PROMs on ≥1000 patients with ≥80% follow-up; these parameters are conducive to comprehensive multivariable analysis, while maintaining study validity and avoiding follow-up bias. Federal funding and a central coordinating site may be helpful in achieving follow-up in studies of this magnitude. Level III, systematic review of studies with Level of Evidence I-III.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has become a mainstay of orthopedic joint arthroplasty research. Large studies with >1000 participants are vital to orthopedic research, as they allow for comprehensive multivariable analysis. Achieving high follow-up rates minimizes potential response bias. Maintaining adequate follow-up rates becomes more challenging as sample size increases. We aimed to systematically review the present literature to determine the follow-up rates of large cohorts/registries of total joint arthroplasty patients and to identify factors associated with successful collection of PROMs.
METHODS METHODS
A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were: ≥1000 participants, ≥6 months of postoperative follow-up, and use of validated PROMs postoperatively.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 720 abstracts screened, 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Only 2 studies reported achieving a PROM follow-up rate ≥80%, but neither collected PROMs preoperatively. The median rate of follow-up was 70%, and the median number of patients was 2970. Only 38% (8 of 21) of studies collected baseline PROMs prior to surgery.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Very few studies in the present literature have collected validated PROMs on ≥1000 patients with ≥80% follow-up; these parameters are conducive to comprehensive multivariable analysis, while maintaining study validity and avoiding follow-up bias. Federal funding and a central coordinating site may be helpful in achieving follow-up in studies of this magnitude.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE METHODS
Level III, systematic review of studies with Level of Evidence I-III.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31286051
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.03.006
pii: S2352-3441(19)30031-7
pmc: PMC6588815
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

243-250

Subventions

Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : K23 AR066133
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 AR053684
Pays : United States

Références

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Jun;82(6):838-42
pubmed: 10859103
Acta Orthop Scand. 2000 Aug;71(4):337-53
pubmed: 11028881
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jun;83(6):916-26
pubmed: 11407801
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Jan;86(1):15-21
pubmed: 14711940
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Feb;24(2):210-6
pubmed: 18534427
Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Jun;38(3):831-7
pubmed: 19264846
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010 Apr;62(4):480-8
pubmed: 20391502
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 23;363(26):2477-81
pubmed: 21142528
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Jul;93(7):867-75
pubmed: 21705555
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Apr;64(4):563-72
pubmed: 22183807
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Mar 23;12:73
pubmed: 22443109
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012 Oct;51(10):1804-13
pubmed: 22532699
Hip Int. 2012 Mar-Apr;22(2):160-5
pubmed: 22547380
Hip Int. 2012 Jul-Aug;22(4):355-61
pubmed: 22878971
Acta Orthop. 2012 Aug;83(4):321-7
pubmed: 22900909
BMC Res Notes. 2012 Dec 02;5:665
pubmed: 23199054
Epidemiology. 2013 Jan;24(1):1-9
pubmed: 23211345
Bone Joint J. 2013 Jan;95-B(1):38-44
pubmed: 23307671
BMC Med. 2013 Mar 06;11:62
pubmed: 23497272
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Jul 30;11:128
pubmed: 23895227
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 04;8(9):e73228
pubmed: 24023837
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014 Feb;53(2):361-6
pubmed: 24196389
Acta Orthop. 2014 Feb;85(1):39-48
pubmed: 24286564
Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2013 Dec;4(4):117-26
pubmed: 24600532
Am J Sports Med. 2014 May;42(5):1058-67
pubmed: 24647881
Acta Orthop. 2014 Sep;85(5):463-9
pubmed: 24954494
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Oct;42(10):2301-10
pubmed: 25274353
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3370-9
pubmed: 25700999
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Dec;30(12):2071-5
pubmed: 26195355
BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 27;5(7):e007765
pubmed: 26216152
Hip Int. 2016 Jan-Feb;26(1):73-81
pubmed: 26449336
Acta Orthop. 2016;87(2):93-9
pubmed: 26863583
Acta Orthop. 2016 Jul;87 Suppl 1:3-8
pubmed: 27168175
Acta Orthop. 2016 Jul;87 Suppl 1:9-23
pubmed: 27228230
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jan;32(1):92-100.e2
pubmed: 27444848
Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Oct 25;8:509-514
pubmed: 27822092
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Mar;79(2):254-7
pubmed: 9119852
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Feb;80(2):163-73
pubmed: 9486722

Auteurs

Muhammad B Tariq (MB)

Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Sports Health, Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

José F Vega (JF)

Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Sports Health, Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Robert Westermann (R)

Department of Orthopaedic Sports Health, Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Morgan Jones (M)

Department of Orthopaedic Sports Health, Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Kurt P Spindler (KP)

Department of Orthopaedic Sports Health, Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Classifications MeSH