Literature DB >> 24072624

Stakeholders in outcome measures: review from a clinical perspective.

Mark R Brinker1, Daniel P O'Connor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Modern interest in patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in orthopaedics dates back to the mid-1980s. While gradual growth of activity in this area has occurred over the past 25 years, the extent to which this research methodology is applied in clinical practice to improve patient care is unclear. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Historically, clinical research in orthopaedics has focused on the technical success of treatment, and objective indicators such as mortality, morbidity, and complications. By contrast, the PROMs framework focuses on effects of treatment described in terms of relief of symptoms, restoring functional ability, and improving quality of life. PROMs can be used to study the relative effects of disease, injury, and treatment across different health conditions. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: All clinical research should begin with identifying clear and meaningful research questions so that the resources and efforts required for data collection result in useful data. Different consumers of research data have different perspectives on what comprises meaningful information. Involving stakeholders such as patients, providers, payers, and policy-makers when defining priorities in the larger research endeavor is one way to inform what type of data should be collected in a particular study. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Widespread collection of outcomes data would potentially aid these stakeholders by identifying best practices, benefits and costs, and important patient or practice characteristics related to outcomes. Several initiatives currently underway may help systematic collection of PROMs, create efficient systems, and foster collaborations to provide support and resources to minimize costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24072624      PMCID: PMC3792283          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3265-3

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


  103 in total

1.  Evidence-based orthopedic surgery: is it possible?

Authors:  Michael Suk; Beate Hanson; David L Helfet
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.472

Review 2.  Cost-utility analyses in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  Carmen A Brauer; Allison B Rosen; Natalia V Olchanski; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States.

Authors:  Patrick W Sullivan; Vahram Ghushchyan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  A self-administered questionnaire for assessment of symptoms and function of the shoulder.

Authors:  J Dawson; R Fitzpatrick; A Carr
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  The cost-utility of lumbar disc herniation surgery.

Authors:  Elisabeth Hansson; Tommy Hansson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-05-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G W Torrance
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

7.  Automated telecommunication to obtain longitudinal follow-up in a multicenter cross-sectional COPD study.

Authors:  Jeffrey I Stewart; Sarah Moyle; Gerard J Criner; Carla Wilson; Ron Tanner; Russell P Bowler; James D Crapo; Robert K Zeldin; Barry J Make; Elizabeth A Regan
Journal:  COPD       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 2.409

8.  American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change.

Authors:  Norman A Johanson; Matthew H Liang; Lawren Daltroy; Sally Rudicel; John Richmond
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  A comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study.

Authors:  T Bradley Edwards; Nimish R Kadakia; Aziz Boulahia; Jean-François Kempf; Pascal Boileau; Chantal Némoz; Gilles Walch
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)--validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement.

Authors:  Anna K Nilsdotter; L Stefan Lohmander; Maria Klässbo; Ewa M Roos
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2003-05-30       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  5 in total

1.  Facing up to the challenges of advancing Craniofacial Research.

Authors:  Paul A Trainor; Joan T Richtsmeier
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 2.802

2.  Association Between Hospital Readmission and Acute and Sustained Delays in Functional Recovery During 18 Months After Elective Surgery: The Successful Aging after Elective Surgery Study.

Authors:  Margaret A Pisani; Asha Albuquerque; Edward R Marcantonio; Richard N Jones; Ray Yun Gou; Tamara G Fong; Eva M Schmitt; Douglas Tommet; Ilean I Isaza Aizpurua; David C Alsop; Sharon K Inouye; Thomas G Travison
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 3.  Functional outcomes assessment in shoulder surgery.

Authors:  James D Wylie; James T Beckmann; Erin Granger; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2014-11-18

4.  Outcome measures for assessing change over time in studies of symptomatic children with hypermobility: a systematic review.

Authors:  Muhammad Maarj; Andrea Coda; Louise Tofts; Cylie Williams; Derek Santos; Verity Pacey
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 2.125

5.  Factors that shape the patient's hospital experience and satisfaction with lower limb arthroplasty: an exploratory thematic analysis.

Authors:  J V Lane; D F Hamilton; D J MacDonald; C Ellis; C R Howie
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.