Article

Comparing the responsiveness of functional outcome assessment measures for trauma registries.

Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.35). 03/2011; 71(1):63-8. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31820e898d
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Measuring long-term disability and functional outcomes after major trauma is not standardized across trauma registries. An ideal measure would be responsive to change but not have significant ceiling effects. The aim of this study was to compare the responsiveness of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), GOS-Extended (GOSE), Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and modified FIM in major trauma patients, with and without significant head injuries.
Patients admitted to two adult Level I trauma centers in Victoria, Australia, who survived to discharge from hospital, were aged 15 years to 80 years with a blunt mechanism of injury, and had an estimated Injury Severity Score >15 on admission, were recruited for this prospective study. The instruments were administered at baseline (hospital discharge) and by telephone interview 6 months after injury. Measures of responsiveness, including effect sizes, were calculated. Bootstrapping techniques, and floor and ceiling effects, were used to compare the measures.
Two hundred forty-three patients participated, of which 234 patients (96%) completed the study. The GOSE and GOS were the most responsive instruments in this major trauma population with effect sizes of 5.3 and 4.4, respectively. The GOSE had the lowest ceiling effect (17%).
The GOSE was the instrument with greatest responsiveness and the lowest ceiling effect in a major trauma population with and without significant head injuries and is recommended for use by trauma registries for monitoring functional outcomes and benchmarking care. The results of this study do not support the use of the modified FIM for this purpose.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
78 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To contrast the analgesic effect of duloxetine with antidepressants reported in other published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and review articles in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). In this narrative review, the results of 13 RCTs and 5 systematic reviews examining the analgesic effect of various antidepressants in CLBP were contrasted with those of 3 placebo-controlled duloxetine RCTs. Treatment effects based on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average score in the duloxetine RCTs were assessed in all completers (by study and overall) and in last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) analyses (extracted from study reports). 30%- and 50%-reduction response rates were compared between duloxetine and placebo. Eleven different antidepressants were examined in 13 individual RCTs. Sample sizes, treatment durations, and analysis methods varied across studies. Reviews each included 5 to 9 of the RCTs and came to different conclusions regarding the analgesic effect of antidepressants: 2 found no evidence while 3 reported some evidence. The completer analysis showed greater improvements in BPI average scores with duloxetine vs. placebo (significant in 2 studies). Overall, the least square mean (standard error) difference between treatments was - 0.7 (0.15) (P < 0.0001). Overall response rates were significantly larger with duloxetine than with placebo. Due to the diversity of previous studies and the pooling methods used, the conclusions regarding the analgesic effect of antidepressants in CLBP drawn from systematic reviews must be interpreted with caution. Appropriately designed and powered studies similar to recently published duloxetine studies are recommended to demonstrate the analgesic effect of antidepressants.
    Pain Practice 02/2014; 14(2):E33-41. · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Physiotherapy is integral to modern trauma care. Early physiotherapy and mobility have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with isolated injuries; however, the optimal intensity of physiotherapy in the multitrauma patient population has not yet been examined. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether an intensive physiotherapy program resulted in improved inpatient mobility. We conducted a single-center prospective randomized controlled study of 90 consecutive patients admitted to the Alfred Hospital (a Level 1 trauma center) in Australia between October 2011 and June 2012 who could participate in ward-based physiotherapy. Participants were allocated to either usual care (daily physiotherapy treatment, approximately 30 minutes) or intensive physiotherapy (usual care plus two additional 30-minute treatments each day). The primary outcome measure was the modified Iowa Level of Assistance (mILOA) score, collected by a blinded assessor at Days 3 and 5 (or earlier if discharged). Secondary measures included physical readiness for discharge, hospital and rehabilitation length of stay, a patient confidence and satisfaction scale, and quality of life at 6 months. Groups were comparable at baseline. Participants in the intensive physiotherapy group achieved significantly improved mILOA scores on Day 3 (median, 7 points compared with 10 points; p = 0.02) and Day 5 (median, 7.5 points compared with 16 points; p = 0.04) and were more satisfied with their care (p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in time to physical readiness, discharge destination, length of stay, or quality-of-life measures. Intensive physiotherapy resulted in improved mobility in trauma inpatients. Further studies are required to determine if specific groups benefit more from intensive physiotherapy and if this translates to long-term improvements in outcomes. Therapeutic study, level 1.
    The journal of trauma and acute care surgery. 01/2014; 76(1):101-6.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Trauma care systems aim to reduce both death and disability, yet there is little data on post-trauma health status and functional outcome. To evaluate baseline, discharge, six month and 12 month post-trauma quality of life, functional outcome and predictors of quality of life in Hong Kong. Multicentre, prospective cohort study using data from the trauma registries of three regional trauma centres in Hong Kong. Trauma patients with an ISS≥9 and aged≥18 years were included. The main outcome measures were the physical component summary (PCS) score and mental component summary (MCS) scores of the Short-Form 36 (SF36) for health status, and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) for functional outcome. Between 1 January 2010 and 31 September 2010, 400 patients (mean age 53.3 years; range 18-106; 69.5% male) were recruited to the study. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between responders (N=177) and surviving non-responders (N=163). However, there were significant differences between these groups and the group of patients who died (N=60). Only 16/400 (4%) cases reported a GOSE≥7. 62/400 (15.5%) responders reached the HK population norm for PCS. 125/400 (31%) responders reached the HK population norm for MCS. If non-responders had similar outcomes to responders, then the percentages for GOSE≥7 would rise from 4% to 8%, for PCS from 15.5% to 30%, and for MCS from 31% to 60%. Univariate analysis showed that 12-month poor quality of life was significantly associated with age>65 years (OR 4.77), male gender (OR 0.44), pre-injury health problems (OR 2.30), admission to ICU (OR 2.15), ISS score 26-40 (OR 3.72), baseline PCS (OR 0.89), one-month PCS (OR 0.89), one-month MCS (OR 0.97), 6-month PCS (OR 0.76) and 6-month MCS (OR 0.97). For patients sustaining moderate or major trauma in Hong Kong at 12 months after injury<1 in 10 patients had an excellent recovery, ≤3 in 10 reached a physical health status score≥Hong Kong norm, although as many as 6 in 10 patients had a mental health status score which is≥Hong Kong norm.
    Injury 11/2013; · 1.93 Impact Factor