Article

Variation in Outcome Measures in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Clinical Trials: A Proposed Approach to Achieving Consensus

Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, United States
The Journal of Rheumatology (Impact Factor: 3.17). 10/2009; 36(9):2050-6. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum090356
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OMERACT began work over a decade ago on a consensus effort to identify optimal outcome measures for knee and hip osteoarthritis clinical trials. Recent evidence indicates extensive variation in outcome measures used in clinical trials of knee and hip arthroplasty published since 2000. This heterogeneity leads to confusion, not only for conducting systematic reviews but also for applying evidence to clinical practice. Given the extensive psychometric research conducted in the past 2 decades, the timing seems ideal to design and implement a study to develop consensus on optimal outcome measures for hip and knee arthroplasty trials. We describe a Delphi survey design and an approach for synthesizing the extensive psychometric literature on the outcome measures used in hip and knee arthroplasty trials. Plans for dissemination of the findings are also discussed. This proposed study could have an important influence on the design and reporting of future randomized trials of knee arthroplasty.

1 Bookmark
 · 
50 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Physical therapists encounter many barriers to using outcome measures (OMs) in clinical practice. Clinicians working with patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have additional challenges related to the heterogeneous patient population and frequent symptom variability in individual patients. Although many OMs are available for patients with MS, few resources exist to assist the physical therapist with identifying and selecting the most appropriate measures for this patient population. In 2010, the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association appointed the Multiple Sclerosis Task Force (MSTF) to review and make evidencebased recommendations for the use of OMs in clinical practice, education, and research specific to persons with MS (PWMS). The purposes of this paper are 1: to describe the process used by the MSTF to evaluate the psychometric data and clinical utility of OMs for use in individuals with MS, 2: to describe the consensus process used to recommend OMs for this patient population, and 3: to provide evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in selecting appropriate OMs for PWMS. The MSTF reviewed 63 OMs. A modified Delphi process was used to build consensus on recommendations for PWMS across the disability spectrum and in various health care settings. Nearly half of the OMs received ratings of 3 or 4 (Recommended or Highly Recommended, respectively) for use in in-patient rehabilitation and outpatient settings, and three of four MS- related disability groupings. The MSTF concluded that the recommendations have broad applicability for clinicians working with PWMS across the disability spectrum, in any health care setting. The recommendations can assist with making sound decisions when selecting OMs for PWMS.
    Physical Therapy 12/2013; 94(5). DOI:10.2522/ptj.20130149 · 3.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The OPTIMAL is a recently developed self-report outcome instrument designed to measure the extent of activity limitation as defined by the World Health Organization. The purposes of our study were to replicate some aspects of the original study of OPTIMAL Difficulty and Confidence scales and conduct additional psychometric tests. METHODS: Using a cross sectional design, we recruited 1,030 patients from four outpatient centers who completed the OPTIMAL and previously validated region-specific functional status measures. A variety of analytic methods were used to examine the extent of redundancy between the OPTIMAL Difficulty and Confidence scales, the internal consistency reliability and the standard error of measurement, known groups validity and convergent validity of OPTIMAL Difficulty scores. RESULTS: OPTIMAL Difficulty and Confidence scores were found in a factor analysis to load based on anatomical region rather than on difficulty and confidence concepts. Internal consistency reliability for the Confidence subscales varied and was 0.80 or higher for the Lower Extremity subscale but 0.50 or less for the Trunk and Upper Extremity subscales. CONCLUSION: Our findings generally did not support the psychometric properties of the OPTIMAL. While not conclusive, our data suggested that the OPTIMAL Difficulty and Confidence scales demonstrate substantial overlap. Reliability was generally low, with the exception of the Lower Extremity subscale. Scores for the Confidence sub-scales differentiated among patients with Lower Extremity versus Trunk or Upper Extremity diagnoses but associations with previously validated region specific measures were generally weak or absent. Clinicians treating patients with musculoskeletal disorders should consider alternative measures when attempting to quantify the extent of activity limitations.
    Physical Therapy 02/2013; 93(5). DOI:10.2522/ptj.20120444 · 3.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Lack of standardization of outcome measurement has hampered an evidence-based approach to clinical practice and research. METHODS: We adopted a process of reviewing evidence on current use of measures and appropriate theoretical frameworks for health and disability to inform a consensus process that was focused on deriving the minimal set of core domains in distal radius fracture. RESULTS: We agreed on the following seven core recommendations: (1) pain and function were regarded as the primary domains, (2) very brief measures were needed for routine administration in clinical practice, (3) these brief measures could be augmented by additional measures that provide more detail or address additional domains for clinical research, (4) measurement of pain should include measures of both intensity and frequency as core attributes, (5) a numeric pain scale, e.g. visual analogue scale or visual numeric scale or the pain subscale of the patient-reported wrist evaluation (PRWE) questionnaires were identified as reliable, valid and feasible measures to measure these concepts, (6) for function, either the Quick Disability of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire or PRWE-function subscale was identified as reliable, valid and feasible measures, and (7) a measure of participation and treatment complications should be considered core outcomes for both clinical practice and research. CONCLUSION: We used a sound methodological approach to form a comprehensive foundation of content for outcomes in the area of distal radius fractures. We recommend the use of symptom and function as separate domains in the ICF core set in clinical research or practice for patients with wrist fracture. Further research is needed to provide more definitive measurement properties of measures across all domains.
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 06/2013; DOI:10.1007/s00402-013-1767-9 · 1.36 Impact Factor