Literature DB >> 23897504

Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty registries: challenges and opportunities.

Patricia D Franklin1, Leslie Harrold, David C Ayers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) registries traditionally have focused on implant longevity and rates of revision surgery. Registries would benefit from the addition of standardized patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as pain relief and improved physical function. However, PROs have not been routinely adopted, and their incorporation into TJA registries presents challenges. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We review current PRO use by existing national registries, challenges to integrating PROs in national registries, lessons from national registries that have integrated PROs, and suggestions to guide future adoption of PROs.
METHODS: We conducted a literature search of papers addressing PRO use in national knee and hip arthroplasty registries, resulting in 15 articles. These publications were supplemented by discussions with thought leaders from international registries. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Some national TJA registries are collecting PROs and valuable research is emerging. However, challenges exist, such as selecting suitable PROs, selection bias in countries without government-mandated participation for all hospitals, and challenges with missing data. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: The ideal system will incorporate PROs into TJA registries. In so doing, it will be important to choose suitable PROs and develop innovative methods to collect PROs to ensure complete data and sustainability. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: New methods are required to meet the challenges related to registry design, logistics of PRO collection, and registry cost and sustainability. Modifications to the traditional hospital- and implant-centric design and new procedures to collect complete data from both patients and clinicians may be necessary. For instance, England and Wales, New Zealand, and Sweden developed methods to collect PROs after TJA directly from patients and a US TJA registry collects PROs as the primary outcome. Finally, to assure long-term sustainability, PRO data must be valuable to multiple stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23897504      PMCID: PMC3792256          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3193-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  20 in total

Review 1.  Use of patient-reported outcomes in the context of different levels of data.

Authors:  Ola Rolfson; Alastair Rothwell; Art Sedrakyan; Kate Eresian Chenok; Eric Bohm; Kevin J Bozic; Göran Garellick
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Delays and difficulties in assessing metal-on-metal hip implants.

Authors:  Joshua P Rising; Ian S Reynolds; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data.

Authors:  J W Goodfellow; J J O'Connor; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-12

4.  Beyond joint implant registries: a patient-centered research consortium for comparative effectiveness in total joint replacement.

Authors:  Patricia D Franklin; Jeroan J Allison; David C Ayers
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Patient-reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data.

Authors:  Nancy J Devlin; David Parkin; John Browne
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

Authors:  N Bellamy; W W Buchanan; C H Goldsmith; J Campbell; L W Stitt
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 4.666

7.  The association between body mass index and the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul Baker; Tim Petheram; Simon Jameson; Mike Reed; Paul Gregg; David Deehan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  The validity of self-report as a technique for measuring short-term complications after total hip arthroplasty in a joint replacement registry.

Authors:  Jordan N Greenbaum; Lindsey J Bornstein; Stephen Lyman; Michael M Alexiades; Geoffrey H Westrich
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 9.  Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a "good" measure.

Authors:  Natalie J Collins; Ewa M Roos
Journal:  Clin Geriatr Med       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 3.076

10.  Independent predictors of failure up to 7.5 years after 35 386 single-brand cementless total hip replacements: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data.

Authors:  S S Jameson; P N Baker; J Mason; M Rymaszewska; P J Gregg; D J Deehan; M R Reed
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.082

View more
  23 in total

1.  What Preoperative Factors are Associated With Not Achieving a Minimum Clinically Important Difference After THA? Findings from an International Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Pakdee Rojanasopondist; Vincent P Galea; James W Connelly; Sean J Matuszak; Ola Rolfson; Charles R Bragdon; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Preoperative pain and function profiles reflect consistent TKA patient selection among US surgeons.

Authors:  David C Ayers; Wenjun Li; Leslie Harrold; Jeroan Allison; Patricia D Franklin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Validation of the KOOS, JR: A Short-form Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes Survey.

Authors:  Stephen Lyman; Yuo-Yu Lee; Patricia D Franklin; Wenjun Li; Michael B Cross; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Validation of the HOOS, JR: A Short-form Hip Replacement Survey.

Authors:  Stephen Lyman; Yuo-Yu Lee; Patricia D Franklin; Wenjun Li; David J Mayman; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Patient-Reported Outcomes: Understanding Surgical Efficacy and Quality from the Patient's Perspective.

Authors:  Jessica I Billig; Erika D Sears; Breanna N Travis; Jennifer F Waljee
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Challenges in outcome measurement: clinical research perspective.

Authors:  Daniel P O'Connor; Mark R Brinker
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Does Surgical Approach Affect Patient-reported Function After Primary THA?

Authors:  Sara C Graves; Benjamin M Dropkin; Benjamin J Keeney; Jon D Lurie; Ivan M Tomek
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in U.S. Total joint replacement registries: rationale, status, and plans.

Authors:  Patricia D Franklin; David Lewallen; Kevin Bozic; Brian Hallstrom; William Jiranek; David C Ayers
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Robin R Whitebird; Leif I Solberg; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Christine K Norton; Ella A Chrenka; Marc Swiontkowski; Megan Reams; Elizabeth S Grossman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 4.755

10.  Strategies for Effective Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Practice.

Authors:  Patricia D Franklin; Christina P Bond; Nan E Rothrock; David Cella
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 5.284

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.