Literature DB >> 30057269

Current Trends in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Study of 4 Major Orthopaedic Journals.

Matthew P Siljander1, Kade S McQuivey2, Adam M Fahs1, Lisa A Galasso2, Kevin J Serdahely2, Mark S Karadsheh1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: More emphasis is being placed on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but the myriad of PROMs makes standardization and cross-study comparison difficult. As the era of big data and massive total joint registries matures, it will be critical to identify and implement the best PROMs.
METHODS: All abstracts published in the years 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2016 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American volume, the Bone and Joint Journal, Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research, and the Journal of Arthroplasty were reviewed. A PubMed search was performed with filters limiting results only to total knee, total hip, and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty articles with available abstracts. Each abstract was reviewed to identify all PROMs. Trends over time were evaluated using the Cochran-Armitage test. In the non-trend analysis, Pearson chi-square tests and one-way analysis of variance were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 42 unique PROMs were used 1073 times across 644 studies. The number of PROMs in these 4 journals increased from 97 in 2004 to 228 in 2016 (P < .0001). The proportion of articles with more than one PROM increased from 20.6% in 2004 to 47.8% in 2016 (P = .0001). The most common PROMs used in total knee, total hip, and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty studies were the Knee Society Score, the Harris Hip Score, and the Oxford Knee Score, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Providers and registries should consider the relative prevalence of published outcome measures when selecting which PROMs to use, to better facilitate future cross-study comparison.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PROM; patient satisfaction score; patient-reported outcome measures; total hip arthroplasty; total knee arthroplasty; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30057269     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  30 in total

1.  Pearls: How to Make the Most of PROMs in Everyday Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Outcome of Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Arthroplasty with 4th Generation 36 mm Head Compared to that with 3rd Generation 28 mm Head by Propensity Score Matching.

Authors:  Soong Joon Lee; Kang Sup Yoon
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 1.251

3.  Spacer exchange in persistent periprosthetic joint infection: microbiological evaluation and survivorship analysis.

Authors:  Antonio Clemente; Luca Cavagnaro; Antonio Russo; Francesco Chiarlone; Alessandro Massè; Giorgio Burastero
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Revision total hip arthroplasty is associated with poorer clinically meaningful improvements and patient satisfaction compared to primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Siyuan Zhang; Jerry Yongqiang Chen; Hee Nee Pang; Ngai Nung Lo; Seng Jin Yeo; Ming Han Lincoln Liow
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-11-27

Review 5.  A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Trauma Trials: What Are We Measuring?

Authors:  Francesc Marcano-Fernández; Jaume Camara-Cabrera; Kim Madden; Herman Johal; Ibrahim Mohammad Nadeem; Raveena Kapoor; Michael Shehata; Carlos Prada
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2022-06-18       Impact factor: 1.033

Review 6.  The role of commercially available smartphone apps and wearable devices in monitoring patients after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  David Constantinescu; William Pavlis; Michael Rizzo; Dennis Vanden Berge; Spencer Barnhill; Victor Hugo Hernandez
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2022-07-05

7.  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

8.  Assessing the Patient-Perceived Monetary Value of Patient-Reported Outcome Improvement for Patients With Chronic Knee Conditions.

Authors:  Sarah B Floyd; Alicia Oostdyk; Melanie Cozad; John M Brooks; Paul Siffri; Brian Burnikel
Journal:  J Patient Cent Res Rev       Date:  2021-04-19

Review 9.  Outcome measures in total hip arthroplasty: have our metrics changed over 15 years?

Authors:  Roy H Lan; Jack W Bell; Linsen T Samuel; Atul F Kamath
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 2.928

Review 10.  Overview of Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (34,020 Patients): What Have We Learnt?

Authors:  Hosam E Matar; Simon R Platt; Tim N Board; Martyn L Porter
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2020-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.