Interpretation Threshold Values for the Oxford Hip Score in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty: Advancing Their Clinical Use.
Journal
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
ISSN: 1535-1386
Titre abrégé: J Bone Joint Surg Am
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0014030
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 05 2023
17 05 2023
Historique:
medline:
19
5
2023
pubmed:
23
3
2023
entrez:
22
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patient-reported outcome measures such as the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) can capture patient-centered perspectives on outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The OHS assesses hip pain and functional limitations, but defining interpretation threshold values for the OHS is warranted so that numerical OHS values can be translated into whether patients have experienced clinically meaningful changes. Therefore, we determined the minimal important change (MIC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and treatment failure (TF) threshold values for the OHS at 12 and 24-month follow-up in patients undergoing THA. This cohort study used data from patients undergoing THA at 1 public hospital between July 2016 and April 2021. At 12 and 24 months postoperatively, patients provided responses for the OHS and for 3 anchor questions about whether they had experienced changes in hip pain and function, whether they considered their symptom state to be satisfactory, and if it was not satisfactory, whether they considered the treatment to have failed. The anchor-based adjusted predictive modeling method was used to determine interpretation threshold values. Baseline dependency was evaluated using a new item-split method. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to determine 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Complete data were obtained for 706 (69%) of 1,027 and 728 (66%) of 1,101 patients at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. These patients had a median age of 70 years, and 55% to 56% were female. Adjusted OHS MIC values were 6.3 (CI, 4.6 to 8.1) and 5.2 (CI, 3.6 to 6.7), adjusted OHS PASS values were 30.6 (CI, 29.0 to 32.2) and 30.5 (CI, 29.3 to 31.8), and adjusted OHS TF values were 25.5 (CI, 22.9 to 27.7) and 27.0 (CI, 25.2 to 28.8) at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. MIC values were 5.4 (CI, 2.1 to 9.1) and 5.0 (CI, 1.9 to 8.7) higher at 12 and 24 months, respectively, in patients with a more severe preoperative state. The established interpretation threshold values advance the interpretation and clinical use of the OHS, and may prove especially beneficial for registry-based evaluations of treatment quality. Prognostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcome measures such as the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) can capture patient-centered perspectives on outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The OHS assesses hip pain and functional limitations, but defining interpretation threshold values for the OHS is warranted so that numerical OHS values can be translated into whether patients have experienced clinically meaningful changes. Therefore, we determined the minimal important change (MIC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and treatment failure (TF) threshold values for the OHS at 12 and 24-month follow-up in patients undergoing THA.
METHODS
This cohort study used data from patients undergoing THA at 1 public hospital between July 2016 and April 2021. At 12 and 24 months postoperatively, patients provided responses for the OHS and for 3 anchor questions about whether they had experienced changes in hip pain and function, whether they considered their symptom state to be satisfactory, and if it was not satisfactory, whether they considered the treatment to have failed. The anchor-based adjusted predictive modeling method was used to determine interpretation threshold values. Baseline dependency was evaluated using a new item-split method. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to determine 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Complete data were obtained for 706 (69%) of 1,027 and 728 (66%) of 1,101 patients at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. These patients had a median age of 70 years, and 55% to 56% were female. Adjusted OHS MIC values were 6.3 (CI, 4.6 to 8.1) and 5.2 (CI, 3.6 to 6.7), adjusted OHS PASS values were 30.6 (CI, 29.0 to 32.2) and 30.5 (CI, 29.3 to 31.8), and adjusted OHS TF values were 25.5 (CI, 22.9 to 27.7) and 27.0 (CI, 25.2 to 28.8) at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. MIC values were 5.4 (CI, 2.1 to 9.1) and 5.0 (CI, 1.9 to 8.7) higher at 12 and 24 months, respectively, in patients with a more severe preoperative state.
CONCLUSIONS
The established interpretation threshold values advance the interpretation and clinical use of the OHS, and may prove especially beneficial for registry-based evaluations of treatment quality.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Prognostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36947604
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.22.01293
pii: 00004623-202305170-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
797-804Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H467 ).
Références
Ferguson RJ, Palmer AJ, Taylor A, Porter ML, Malchau H, Glyn-Jones S. Hip replacement. Lancet. 2018 Nov 3;392(10158):1662-71.
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Feb;78(2):185-190.
Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Aug;89(8):1010-4.
King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011 Apr;11(2):171-84.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Aug 22;4:54.
Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Felson D, Hochberg M, van der Heijde D, Dougados M. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Jan;64(1):34-7.
Ingelsrud LH, Granan LP, Terwee CB, Engebretsen L, Roos EM. Proportion of Patients Reporting Acceptable Symptoms or Treatment Failure and Their Associated KOOS Values at 6 to 24 Months After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Study From the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Aug;43(8):1902-7.
Sabah SA, Alvand A, Beard DJ, Price AJ. Minimal important changes and differences were estimated for Oxford hip and knee scores following primary and revision arthroplasty. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Mar;143:159-68.
Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray DW, Carr AJ, Price AJ. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jan;68(1):73-9.
Keurentjes JC, Van Tol FR, Fiocco M, So-Osman C, Onstenk R, Koopman-Van Gemert AWMM, Pöll RG, Nelissen RGHH. Patient acceptable symptom states after total hip or knee replacement at mid-term follow-up: Thresholds of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Bone Joint Res. 2014 Jan 13;3(1):7-13.
Judge A, Arden NK, Kiran A, Price A, Javaid MK, Beard D, Murray D, Field RE. Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes for hip and knee replacement surgery: identification of thresholds associated with satisfaction with surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Mar;94(3):412-8.
Galea VP, Ingelsrud LH, Florissi I, Shin D, Bragdon CR, Malchau H, Gromov K, Troelsen A. Patient-acceptable symptom state for the Oxford Hip Score and Forgotten Joint Score at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years following total hip arthroplasty: a registry-based study of 597 cases. Acta Orthop. 2020 Aug;91(4):372-7.
Arden NK, Kiran A, Judge A, Biant LC, Javaid MK, Murray DW, Carr AJ, Cooper C, Field RE. What is a good patient reported outcome after total hip replacement? Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011 Feb;19(2):155-62.
Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee CB, de Vet HCW. Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Dec;68(12):1388-96.
Harris K, Dawson J, Gibbons E, Lim CR, Beard DJ, Fitzpatrick R, Price AJ. Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2016 Jul 25;7:101-8.
Ingelsrud LH, Roos EM, Terluin B, Gromov K, Husted H, Troelsen A. Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee Score and the Forgotten Joint Score at 1 year after total knee replacement. Acta Orthop. 2018 Oct;89(5):541-7.
Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee CB. Improved adjusted minimal important change took reliability of transition ratings into account. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Aug;148:48-53.
Griffiths P, Terluin B, Trigg A, Schuller W, Bjorner JB. A confirmatory factor analysis approach was found to accurately estimate the reliability of transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Jan;141:36-45.
Hanley JA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging. 1989;29(3):307-35.
Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-5.
Terluin B, Roos EM, Terwee CB, Thorlund JB, Ingelsrud LH. Assessing baseline dependency of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC): don’t stratify on the baseline score! Qual Life Res. 2021 Oct;30(10):2773-82.
Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A, Qasim A, Phillips M, Johnston BC, Devasenapathy N, Zeraatkar D, Bhatt M, Jin X, Brignardello-Petersen R, Urquhart O, Foroutan F, Schandelmaier S, Pardo-Hernandez H, Vernooij RW, Huang H, Rizwan Y, Siemieniuk R, Lytvyn L, Patrick DL, Ebrahim S, Furukawa T, Nesrallah G, Schünemann HJ, Bhandari M, Thabane L, Guyatt GH. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study. BMJ. 2020 Jun 4;369:m1714.
Wang Y, Devji T, Qasim A, Hao Q, Wong V, Bhatt M, Prasad M, Wang Y, Noori A, Xiao Y, Ghadimi M, Lozano LEC, Phillips MR, Carrasco-Labra A, King M, Terluin B, Terwee CB, Walsh M, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Feb;142:144-51.
Schwartz CE, Zhang J, Rapkin BD, Finkelstein JA. Reconsidering the minimally important difference: evidence of instability over time and across groups. Spine J. 2019 Apr;19(4):726-34.
Seetharam A, Deckard ER, Ziemba-Davis M, Meneghini RM. The AAHKS Clinical Research Award: Are Minimum Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Necessary for Accurate Assessment of Patient Outcomes After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2022 Aug;37(8S)(Supplement):S716-20.
Harris LK, Troelsen A, Terluin B, Gromov K, Price A, Ingelsrud LH. Interpretation threshold values for the Oxford Knee Score in patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2022 Jul 5;93:634-42.
Farrar JT, Young JPJ Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole MR. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001 Nov;94(2):149-58.
Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. National Annual Report for 2021. Accessed 2022 Aug 10. https://danskhoftealloplastikregister.dk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DHR-aarsrapport-2021_Udgivet-2022_offentliggjort-version.pdf