Patient Endorsement of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Total Joint Replacement (TJR) clinical trial draft core domain set

Validity of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score for lower extremity in patients with bone sarcoma or giant cell tumour of bone undergoing bone resection and reconstruction surgery in hip and knee

BACKGROUND

The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS) is widely used to evaluate functioning following surgery for bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. However, concerns have been raised about its content validity due to the lack of patient involvement during item development. Additionally, literature reports inconsistent results regarding data quality and structural validity. This study aimed to evaluate content, structural and construct validity of the Danish version of the MSTS for lower extremity (MSTS-LE).

METHODS

The study included patients from three complete cohorts (n = 87) with bone sarcoma or giant cell tumour of bone who underwent bone resection and reconstruction surgery in hip and knee. Content validity was evaluated by linking MSTS items to frameworks of functioning, core outcome sets and semi-structured interviews. Data quality, internal consistency and factor analysis were used to assess the underlying structure of the MSTS. Construct validity was based on predefined hypotheses of correlation between the MSTS and concurrent measurements.

RESULTS

Content validity analysis revealed concerns regarding the MSTS. The MSTS did not sufficiently cover patient-important functions, the item Emotional acceptance could not be linked to the framework of functioning, the items Pain and Emotional acceptance pertained to domains beyond functioning and items' response options did not match items. A two-factor solution emerged, with the items Pain and Emotional acceptance loading highly on a second factor distinct from functioning. Internal consistency and construct validity showed values below accepted levels.

CONCLUSION

The Danish MSTS-LE demonstrated inadequate content validity, internal consistency, and construct validity. In addition, our analyses did not support unidimensionality of the MSTS. Consequently, the MSTS-LE is not a simple reflection of the construct of functioning and the interpretation of a sum score is problematic. Clinicians and researcher should exercise caution when relying solely on MSTS scores for assessing lower extremity function. Alternative outcome measurements of functioning should be considered for the evaluation of postoperative function in this patient group.

Using a Markerless Motion Capture System to Identify Preinjury Differences in Functional Assessments

Functional assessments identify biomechanical issues which may indicate risk for injury and can be used to monitor functional recovery after an injury or surgery. Although the gold standard to assess functional movements is marker-based motion capture systems, these are cost prohibitive and have high participant burden. As such, this study was conducted to determine if a markerless motion capture system could detect preinjury differences in functional movements between those who did and did not experience a noncontact lower extremity injury (NCLEI). A three-dimensional markerless motion capture system comprised an area of 3 m × 5 m × 2.75 m was used. Participants were Division I collegiate athletes wearing plain black long-sleeve shirts, pants, and running shoes of their choice. Functional assessments were the bilateral squat, right and left squat, double leg drop vertical jump, static vertical jump, right and left vertical jump, and right and left 5 hop. Measures were recorded once and the first NCLEI was recorded during the first year after measurement. Two-factor analysis of variance models were used for each measure with factors sex and injury status. Preinjury functional measures averaged 8.4 ± 3.4 minutes capture time. Out of the 333 participants recruited, 209 were male and 124 were female. Of those, 127 males (61%) and 92 females (74%) experienced later NCLEI. The most common initial NCLEI was nonanterior cruciate ligament knee injury in 38 females (41.3%) and 80 males (62.0%). Females had decreased flexion and lower valgus/varus displacement during the bilateral squat (p < 0.006). In addition, knee loading flexion for those who were not injured were more than that seen in the injured group, and was more pronounced for injured females (p < 0.03). The markerless motion capture system can efficiently provide data that can identify preinjury functional differences for lower extremity noncontact injuries. This method holds promise for effectively screening patients or other populations at risk of injury, as well as for monitoring pre-/postsurgery function, without the large costs or participant burden.

Effects of physiotherapy interventions for home-based rehabilitation on physical function after primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to provide a systematic and transparent overview of the effects of common physiotherapy techniques and exercises for the rehabilitation of patients following total knee arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION

Many protocols exist for the rehabilitation of patients after total knee arthroplasty, but there is a lack of systematic evidence on rehabilitation components, including precise exercise descriptions and their parameters. This review will fill in some of the gaps in reporting on scientific rehabilitation protocol components and the evaluation of their effectiveness.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We will include randomized controlled trials investigating active and passive physiotherapy techniques and exercises employed after primary total knee arthroplasty, and which report concrete parameters, such as dosage, duration, frequency, intensity, and function-related measurements. We will exclude other study types and randomized controlled trials reporting on techniques and exercises without precise descriptions.

METHODS

This review will aim to find both published and unpublished studies. The key information sources to be searched are MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PEDro, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts; assess the methodological quality; and extract the data. We will perform narrative synthesis, followed by meta-analyses for pooled studies, where possible.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022309185.

No correlation between symmetry-based performance measures and patient-related outcome prior to and after total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Standardized outcome measures are crucial for the evaluation of different treatment and rehabilitation regimes in patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Performance-based measures are necessary to capture different aspects of physical function. High reliability and agreement of five performance-based measures were hypothesized to differentiate between measurement error and change in test performance. Secondary outcomes are the correlation of performance-based measurements to KSS and WOMAC prior to surgery (baseline) and 10 weeks thereafter (t3).

METHODS

The test-retest reliabilities and agreements of the 1-m walk test, the stair-climbing test, the timed-up-and-go test, the weight-balanced-chair-rising test and the isometric maximum knee extension force in patients undergoing total knee replacements were studied. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated and a Bland-Altman analysis performed.

RESULTS

The weight-balanced-chair-rising test showed a symmetry at baseline = 0.77, 5 ± 1 days after surgery (t1) = 0.50, 9 ± 1 days (t2) = 0.59 and (t3) = 0.80. All performance tests showed high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.81-0.99). The 10-m walk test, stair climbing test, and the timed-up-and-go test showed high agreement in the Bland-Altman analysis. The Bland-Altman analysis for the weight-balanced-chair-rising test and isometric knee extension force indicated high agreement at 5 and 9 days postoperatively, but the relative measurement error increased pre- and 10 weeks postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, symmetry, as an important outcome after TKA, is a reliable and rather unique item that should unquestionably be added to established measurements like walking tests or survey-based function assessment. The implementation of standardized performance-based measures to assess physical function in rehabilitation procedures will help to improve the more objectively based assessment of different rehabilitation protocols.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Patient satisfaction with total joint replacement surgery for rheumatoid arthritis: a questionnaire survey for the 2020 update of the Japan college of rheumatology clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate satisfaction with total joint replacement (TJR) surgery among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We mailed questionnaires to randomly selected members of the Japan Rheumatism Friendship Association, stratified by age and prefecture, throughout Japan. The questionnaire collected demographic and clinical characteristics as well as patients' satisfaction with TJR and their current therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 1156 patients who returned the questionnaire, 339 (29.3%) responded that they had had TJR of any type. The mean age was 66.6 years, and 94.4% were women. The mean time period from the hip and knee TJR was 14-15 years. Over half of the patients who had had TJR were satisfied with the results, especially those who had had hip (89.6%) and knee TJR (87.3%), who reported a high level of satisfaction. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that, in patients with knee TJR, satisfaction with current therapy was significantly related to whether they were satisfied with the results of the surgery.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with RA who had undergone TJR were satisfied with the results even after a long period of time, and their level of satisfaction was associated with their satisfaction with current therapy.

What influences patient satisfaction after total knee replacement? A qualitative long-term follow-up study

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether a conceptual model of patient satisfaction previously developed 1-2 years post-total knee replacement (TKR) is still relevant 3-4 years post-TKR. Specifically, (i) what is the stability in satisfaction levels 3-4 years post-TKR? and (ii) does the existing conceptual model of patient satisfaction after TKR apply at this later follow-up?

DESIGN

A constructivist grounded theory qualitative follow-up study. The present study was theoretically governed by the findings of the initial qualitative inquiry. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were used to test the assumptions of the model developed from the findings of the previous study.

SETTING

An urban Australian public hospital PARTICIPANTS: From 40 people who participated in the original study, 11 participants were purposively sampled based on their level of satisfaction and factors driving satisfaction as reported in their first interview. There were six women and five men, the average time since TKR was 3 years and 5 months, and the average age at time of interview was 77 years.

RESULTS

Satisfaction levels were mostly stable with the exception of three participants; two transitioned in a positive direction; one in a negative direction. The meaning of satisfaction and the factors that influenced satisfaction were consistent with the original findings. However, beliefs relating to the influence of ageing on persistent knee symptoms and functional limitations were more dominant in the present study.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide support for patient satisfaction being a multifactorial construct that is potentially modifiable over time. Clinicians may apply the conceptual model we have described to optimise satisfaction in patients up to 3-4 years post-TKR.

Classification, Categorization, and Algorithms for Articular Cartilage Defects

There is a critical unmet need in the clinical implementation of valid preventative and therapeutic strategies for patients with articular cartilage pathology based on the significant gap in understanding of the relationships between diagnostic data, disease progression, patient-related variables, and symptoms. In this article, the current state of classification and categorization for articular cartilage pathology is discussed with particular focus on machine learning methods and the authors propose a bedside-bench-bedside approach with highly quantitative techniques as a solution to these hurdles. Leveraging computational learning with available data toward articular cartilage pathology patient phenotyping holds promise for clinical research and will likely be an important tool to identify translational solutions into evidence-based clinical applications to benefit patients. Recommendations for successful implementation of these approaches include using standardized definitions of articular cartilage, to include characterization of depth, size, location, and number; using measurements that minimize subjectivity or validated patient-reported outcome measures; considering not just the articular cartilage pathology but the whole joint, and the patient perception and perspective. Application of this approach through a multistep process by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians and scientists holds promise for validating disease mechanism-based phenotypes toward clinically relevant understanding of articular cartilage pathology for evidence-based application to orthopaedic practice.

What Influences Patient Satisfaction after TKA? A Qualitative Investigation

BACKGROUND

Patient satisfaction is a common measure of the success of an orthopaedic intervention. However, there is poor understanding of what satisfaction means to patients or what influences it.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using qualitative study methodology in patients undergoing TKA, we asked: (1) What does it mean to be satisfied after TKA? (2) What factors influence satisfaction levels after TKA?

METHODS

People in a hospital registry who had completed 12-month follow-up questionnaires and were not more than 18 months post-TKA at the time of sampling were eligible (n = 121). To recruit a sample that provided insight into a range of TKA experiences, we divided eligible candidates on the registry into quadrants based on their responder status and satisfaction level. A responder was an individual who experienced a clinically meaningful change in pain and/or function on the WOMAC according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responder criteria. Individuals were considered satisfied unless they indicated somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied for one or more of the four items on the Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction Scale. From the resulting quadrants: responder satisfied, nonresponder satisfied, nonresponder dissatisfied, responder dissatisfied, we identified men and women with a range of ages and invited them to participate (n = 85). The final sample (n = 40), consisted of 10 responder satisfied, nine nonresponder satisfied, eight nonresponder dissatisfied, and 13 responder dissatisfied; 71% were women, with a mean age of 71 ± 7 years and a mean time since TKA surgery of 17 ± 2 months (range 13 to 25 months). Interview transcripts were analyzed by looking for factors in the participants' narrative that appeared to underscore their level of satisfaction and attaching inductive (data-derived, rather than a priori derived) codes to relevant sections of text. Coded data from participants who reported high and low levels of satisfaction were compared/contrasted and emerging patterns were mapped into a conceptual model. Recruitment continued until no new information was uncovered in data analysis of subsequent interviews, signalling to the researchers that further interviews would not change the key themes identified and data collection could cease.

RESULTS

In those with high satisfaction levels, satisfaction was conceptualized as an improvement in pain and function. In those with low satisfaction levels, rather than an improvement, satisfaction was conceptualized as completely resolving all symptoms and functional limitations. In addition, we identified three pathways through which participants reached different levels of low and high satisfaction: (1) The full-glass pathway, characterized by no or minimal ongoing symptoms and functional deficits, which consistently led to high levels of satisfaction; (2) the glass-half-full pathway, characterized by ongoing symptoms and functional limitations, which led to high satisfaction; and (3) the glass-half-empty pathway, also characterized by ongoing symptoms and functional limitations, which led to low satisfaction levels. The latter two pathways were mediated by three core mechanisms (recalibration, reframing valued activities, and reconceptualization) influenced either positively or negatively by (1) a persons' thoughts and feelings such as optimism, self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, external locus of control; and (2) social and contextual factors such as fulfilment of social roles, therapeutic alliance, lack of family/social support.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study suggests that for preoperative patients in whom unrealistically high hopes for complete symptom resolution and restoration of functional capacity persists, it may be appropriate to direct them away from TKA due to the risk of low satisfaction. For postoperative patients troubled by ongoing symptoms or functional limitations, clinicians may improve levels of satisfaction by targeting the three core mechanisms (recalibration, reframing valued activities, and reconceptualization) through addressing modifiable negative thoughts and feelings in interventions such as psychology or psychotherapy; and negative social and contextual factors by promoting a strong therapeutic alliance and engagement in community activities. Given that these factors may be identifiable preoperatively, future research is needed to explore if and how addressing them preoperatively may improve satisfaction post-TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Assessment of a Satisfaction Measure for Use After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Patient satisfaction after total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a core outcome selected by the Outcomes Measurement in Rheumatology. Up to 20% of THA/TKA patients are dissatisfied. Improving patient satisfaction is hindered by the lack of a validated measurement tool that can accurately measure change.

METHODS

The psychometric properties of a proposed satisfaction instrument, consisting of 4 questions rated on a Likert scale, scored 1-100, were tested for validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change using data collected between 2007 and 2011 in an arthroplasty registry.

RESULTS

We demonstrated construct validity by confirming our hypothesis; satisfaction correlated with similar constructs. Satisfaction correlated moderately with pain relief (TKA ρ = 0.61, THA ρ = 0.47) and function (TKA ρ = 0.65, THA ρ = 0.51) at 2 years; there was no correlation with baseline/preoperative pain/function values, as expected. Overall Cronbach's alpha >0.88 confirmed internal consistency. Test-retest reliability with weighted kappa ranged 0.60-0.75 for TKA and 0.36-0.56 for THA. Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score/Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores quality of life improvement (>30 points) corresponds to a mean satisfaction score of 93.2 (standard deviation, 11.5) after THA and 90.4 (standard deviation, 13.8) after TKA, and increasing relief of pain and functional improvement increased the strength of their association with satisfaction. The satisfaction measure has no copyright and is available free of cost and represents minimal responder burden.

CONCLUSION

Patient satisfaction with THA/TKA can be measured with a validated 4-item questionnaire. This satisfaction measure can be included in a total joint arthroplasty core measurement set for total joint arthroplasty trials.

Patient, physiotherapist and surgeon endorsement of the core domain set for total hip and total knee replacement in Germany: a study protocol for an OMERACT initiative

INTRODUCTION

There is a lack of harmonising measures for clinical trials on total joint replacement (TJR) that would allow for results from TJR studies to be compared or pooled. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) TJR core domain set is already endorsed among patients and physicians in the USA and Australia. Physiotherapists use different types of measurements compared to orthopaedic surgeons while both make substantial contributions to research in the field of TJR. To achieve consensus on core measurements sets, patients, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons need to achieve consensus on the core domains for TJR trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

For this multistage study, first, the OMERACT TJR core domain set survey will be translated to German and validated according to WHO guidelines. Next, the TJR core domain set will be considered for endorsement in different German stakeholder groups including patients, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this protocol was given by the ethics committee of the Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg (BTU-CS, EK 2019-2). This article is based on the protocol version 2.5 from 6 May 2020. Anonymous data will be presented only. We will publish the results in peer-reviewed publications and at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00016015).

Validation of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain and Function Subscales for Use in Total Hip Replacement and Total Knee Replacement Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Total hip replacement (THR)/total knee replacement (TKR) studies do not uniformly measure patient centered domains, pain, and function. We aim to validate existing measures of pain and function within subscales of standard instruments to facilitate measurement.

METHODS

We evaluated baseline and 2-year pain and function for THR and TKR using Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)/Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), with primary unilateral TKR (4796) and THR (4801). Construct validity was assessed by correlating HOOS/KOOS pain and activities of daily living (ADL), function quality of life (QOL), and satisfaction using Spearman correlation coefficients. Patient relevant thresholds for change in pain and function were anchored to improvement in QOL; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) corresponded to "a little improvement" and a really important difference (RID) to a "moderate improvement." Pain and ADL function scores were compared by quartiles using Kruskal-Wallis.

RESULTS

Two-year HOOS/KOOS pain and ADL function correlated with health-related QOL (KOOS pain and Short Form 12 Physical Component Scale ρ = 0.54; function ρ = 0.63). Comparing QOL by pain and function quartiles, the highest levels of pain relief and function were associated with the most improved QOL. MCID for pain was estimated at ≥20, and the RID ≥29; MCID for function ≥14, and the RID ≥23. The measures were responsive to change with large effect sizes (≥1.8).

CONCLUSION

We confirm that HOOS/KOOS pain and ADL function subscales are valid measures of critical patient centered domains after THR/TKR, and achievable thresholds anchored to improved QOL. Cost-free availability and brevity makes them feasible, to be used in a core measurement set in total joint replacement trials.

Patients' perspectives of outcomes after total knee and total hip arthroplasty: a nominal group study

Background

While total joint replacements (TJR) are frequently performed, there is little qualitative research to define the outcomes most important to patients.

Methods

Patients who had received total hip (THR) or total knee replacements (TKR) participated in 8 nominal groups to answer the question "What result/results matter the most to a patient undergoing/having a knee or hip replacement?" Total 270 votes were allocated.

Results

Eight nominal groups were performed with 45 patients, 6 groups with mean age (71.1 ± 9.3), and 2 with 9 younger patients (mean age 36.8 ± 7.4). All had TJR between 2016 and 2018; overall, 40% were male, 15.6% were Black, and 75% were performed for osteoarthritis. While all groups ranked the same top 3 outcomes, responses varied with age: 1) relief of pain (46% vs. 35% in the young groups); 2) improved function including mobility (29% vs. 18% in the young groups); 3) restored quality of life (13% vs 33% of votes in the younger group).

Conclusion

Relief of pain and restoration of function, and improved quality of life are the 3 outcomes ranked highest by patients, confirming their inclusion in TJR clinical trials.

When Has a Knee or Hip Replacement Failed? A Patient Perspective

OBJECTIVE

To define the patient perspective of what constitutes a failure of total joint replacement (TJR) in a qualitative study.

METHODS

We used the nominal group technique (NGT) with participants who had undergone elective total hip replacements (THR) and/or total knee replacements (TKR) to answer the question, "When would you consider a knee or hip replacement to be a failure?"

RESULTS

We performed 8 nominal groups with 42 participants, all of whom had undergone THR and/or TKR between 2016 and 2018. Of these, 48% were male, 17% were Black, 79% had college education or above, and 76% had had osteoarthritis as the underlying diagnosis. The nominated responses/themes that were ranked the highest by the participants were as follows: (1) refractory index joint pain (80 votes); (2) occurrence of postoperative adverse events (54 votes); (3) unable to resume normal activities or go back to work (38 votes); (4) little or no improvement in quality of life (35 votes); (5) early revision surgery (35 votes); (6) death (7 votes); and (7) other, including nurse or physician negligence (2 votes) and expectation-outcome mismatch (1 vote).

CONCLUSION

Lack of relief of pain or restoration of function or quality of life, or the occurrence of surgical complications after TJR were defined as TJR failure by participants. Functional TJR failure seems as important or more important than surgical failure. This patient perspective emphasizing pain, function, satisfaction, adverse events, and revision as critical domain components of TJR failure independently validated their inclusion in the TJR core domain set for clinical trials in people undergoing knee or hip TJR.

Incidence of total hip and total knee replacements from the prospective epidemiologic risk factor study: considerations for event driven clinical trial design

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) leads to joint failure and total joint replacement (TJR, either hip (H) or knee (K)). Worsening of pain and joint space narrowing are believed to be surrogates for joint failure; however, we hypothesize that TJR, as a reflection of joint failure, can be used as an endpoint in event-driven clinical trials within a reasonable duration. We explored the incidence of TJR in the Prospective Epidemiologic Risk Factor (PERF I) study.

Methods

A total of 5855 Danish postmenopausal women aged 49–88 enrolled in the PERF I study during 1999–2001 (baseline). Three-, six- and twelve-year follow-up data from the Danish National Patient Registry was collected, including occurrence of TJR and OA diagnosis. At baseline the women were asked whether they had OA.

Results

The women with a TJR diagnosis before or after baseline were on average 1 year older (p < 0.001) and heavier (p < 0.001), compared to women with no TJR. The 3-, 6- and 12-year cumulative incidences were 1.1, 2.4 and 6.0% for TKR, and 2.1, 4.4 and 9.3% for THR. For those with an OA diagnosis at baseline the respective incidences were 2.7, 5.6 and 11.7% and 3.9, 7.2 and 13.6%

Conclusions

Within 3, 6 or 12 years TJR incidences were double for women with an OA diagnosis compared to the all-comer population. TJRs are frequent amongst elderly women with OA and it is, therefore, feasible to conduct event-driven clinical trials where TJR is the endpoint demonstrating clinical benefit of a novel disease-modifying OA drug (DMOAD).

European Society of Coloproctology Core Outcome Set for haemorrhoidal disease: an international Delphi study among healthcare professionals

AIM

There is considerable heterogeneity in outcomes in studies reporting on the treatment of haemorrhoidal disease (HD). The aim of this study was to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for HD in cooperation with the European Society of Coloproctology.

METHOD

A Delphi study was performed according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) methodology. In total 38 healthcare professionals and 30 patients were invited to the panel. Previously, 10 outcome domains and 59 outcomes were identified through a systematic literature review. In this study, these domains and outcomes were formed into one questionnaire for healthcare professionals and a separate questionnaire for patients. Sequential questionnaire rounds prioritizing the domains and outcomes were conducted. Panel members were asked to rate the appropriateness of each domain and outcome on a nine-point Likert scale. During a face-to-face meeting, healthcare professionals agreed on the primary and secondary end-points of the COS for HD. Finally, a short survey was sent to the healthcare professionals in order to reach consensus on how the chosen end-points should be assessed and at which time points.

RESULTS

The response rate in questionnaire round 1 for healthcare professionals was 44.7% (n = 17). Sixteen out of 17 healthcare professionals also completed the questionnaire in round 2. The response rate for the patient questionnaire was 60% (n = 18). Seventeen healthcare professionals participated in the face-to-face meeting. The questionnaire rounds did not result in a clear-cut selection of primary and secondary end-points. Most domains and outcomes were considered important, and only three outcomes were excluded. During the face-to-face meeting, agreement was reached to select the domain 'symptoms' as primary end-point, and 'complications', 'recurrence' and 'patient satisfaction' as secondary end-points in the COS for HD. Furthermore, consensus was reached that the domain 'symptoms' should be a patient reported outcome measure and should include the outcomes 'pain' and 'prolapse', 'itching', 'soiling' and 'blood loss'. The domain 'complications' should include the outcomes 'incontinence', 'abscess', 'urinary retention', 'anal stenosis' and 'fistula'. Consensus was reached to use 'reappearance of initial symptoms' as reported by the patient to define recurrence. During an additional short survey, consensus was reached that 'incontinence' should be assessed by the Wexner Fecal Incontinence Score, 'abscess' by physical examination, 'urinary retention' by ultrasonography, 'anal stenosis' by physical examination, and 'fistula' by physical examination and MR imaging if inconclusive. During follow-up, the outcome 'symptoms' should be assessed at baseline, 7 days, 6 weeks and 1 year post-procedure. The outcomes 'abscess' and 'urinary retention' should be assessed 7 days post-procedure and 'incontinence', 'anal stenosis' and 'fistula' 1 year post-procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed the first European Society of Coloproctology COS for HD based on an international Delphi study among healthcare professionals. The next step is to incorporate the patients' perspective in the COS. Use of this COS may improve the quality and uniformity of future research and enhance the analysis of evidence.

Outcome Selection and Methodological Quality of Major and Minor Shoulder Surgery Studies: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets aim to select and standardize the choice of important outcomes reported in clinical trials to encourage more effective data synthesis, increase the reliability of comparing results, and minimize reporting bias. A core outcome set for elective shoulder surgery has yet to be defined, and therefore a systematic assessment of outcomes and methodology is necessary to inform the development of a core outcome set.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to examine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients having elective major or minor shoulder surgery to (1) identify the outcome domains reported; (2) determine specific outcome measurement tools that were utilized; and (3) assess the work for methodological quality and risk of bias.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (a review that identifies the nature and extent of research evidence) to explore the reported outcome domains, outcome tools, and methodological quality from RCTs conducted in shoulder surgery. We considered both major shoulder surgery (defined as arthroplasty, rotator cuff repair, stabilization procedures, biceps tenodesis, or Bankart repairs) and minor shoulder surgery (simple arthroscopy, capsular plication, lateral clavicular excisions, or subacromial decompression). We queried 10 electronic databases for studies published between January 2006 and January 2015. Studies were included if they were prospective, randomized controlled, clinical trials enrolling patients who received an elective shoulder surgical intervention. We extracted data relating to trial characteristics, primary outcomes, tools used to measure these outcomes as well as methodological quality indicators. We assessed indicators of methodological quality by exploring (1) the reproducibility of power analyses; and (2) whether the primary outcomes were powered to minimum clinically important differences. Risk of bias was also assessed with the Jadad score with scores between 0 (very high risk of bias) and 5 (very low risk). Findings were qualitatively analyzed and reported according to systematic and scoping review guidelines. We included 315 studies involving 30,232 patients; 266 studies investigated anesthetic, analgesic, or surgical interventions.

RESULTS

Of the 315 studies included, the most common outcome domains evaluated were analgesic (n = 104), functional (n = 87), anesthetic (n = 56), and radiologic (n = 29) outcomes, with temporal patterns noted. Studies of major shoulder surgery most commonly reported functional primary outcome domains, whereas minor shoulder surgery studies most frequently reported analgesic primary outcome domains. There were 85 different primary outcome tools utilized, which included 20 functional, 20 anesthetic, 13 analgesic, and 12 radiologic. A methodological quality assessment revealed that 24% of studies had reproducible power analyses, 13% were powered to minimum clinically important differences, and risk of bias assessment demonstrated a median (interquartile range [range]) Jadad score of 4 (3-5 [1-5]).

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of outcome domains and outcome assessment tools are in common use in contemporary trials of patients undergoing elective surgery. Although some diversity is important to allow the assessment of patient populations that may have different goals, the large number of tools in common use may impair the ability of future meta-analyses to pool results effectively or even for systematic reviews to synthesize what is known. The limitations of methodological quality in RCTs may be improved by researchers following standard guidelines and considering the minimum clinically important differences in their trials to be of greater use to clinicians and their patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Towards a core outcome set for hemorrhoidal disease-a systematic review of outcomes reported in literature

PURPOSE

Previously published literature regarding treatment of hemorrhoidal disease (HD) revealed a lack of uniform defined outcomes. These differences between outcomes among studies limit transparency and lead to incomparability of results. The aim of this study was to systematically list the types of outcomes used in HD studies. This list will be used to develop a core outcome set.

METHODS

We searched Medline (Pubmed), Embase (OVID), and Cochrane for interventional studies for adult patients with HD. Two authors independently identified and reviewed eligible studies. This resulted in a list of outcomes reported by each clinical trial. All outcomes were categorized using the conceptual framework OMERACT filter 2.0.

RESULTS

A total of 34 randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies were included in this study. A total of 59 different types of outcomes were identified. On average, 5.8 different outcomes (range 2-8) were used per study. The outcomes were structured into three core areas and10 ten domains. The most commonly reported core area was pathophysiological manifestations including the domain symptoms, complications, and recurrence. The most frequently reported outcomes were pain (91%), blood loss (94%), prolapse (71%), and incontinence (56%). There was a high variation in definitions of the common outcomes. And often there was no definition at all.

CONCLUSION

This study shows a substantial heterogeneity in the types of outcomes in HD studies. We provided an overview of the types of outcomes reported in HD studies and identified a list of potentially relevant outcomes required for the development of a COS.

Patients and surgeons provide endorsement of core domains for total joint replacement clinical trials

Background

Our objective in this study was to examine whether stakeholders further endorse the core domain set proposed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Trials (OMERACT) total joint replacement (TJR) working group.

Methods

We emailed a survey to 3810 hip/knee arthroplasty patients and 49 arthroplasty surgeons at a high-volume arthroplasty center to rate the importance of each core domain (i.e., pain, function, patient satisfaction, revision surgery, adverse events, and death) and two additional domains (i.e., cost and participation). Ratings were on a 1–9 scale, with 1–3 indicating limited or no importance for patients, 4–6 being important but not critical, and 7–9 being critical. We calculated median (IQR) values and compared ratings by sex, age, and participant type using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 1295 patients (34%) and 21 surgeons (43%). Patient nonresponders were similar to responders in age (≥55 years, 85.7% vs. 88.6%), sex (female, 57.5% vs. 57.3%), and joint procedure (total hip replacement, 56.9% vs. 63.2%). Overall, all core domains and one noncore domain (i.e., participation) were confirmed as “critical” by both stakeholder groups. Cost was rated as only “important” but not “critical” by surgeons. A completed consensus for all the core domains persisted even when we stratified by sex, age, arthritis type, and the affected joint (knee vs. hip). We received suggestions for additional critical domains from 217 patients and 5 surgeons, prompting the inclusion of 2 research agenda items.

Conclusions

Our study confirmed a consensus rating of the OMERACT TJR core domain set as critical for patients. This broad endorsement should encourage the identification of candidate outcome instruments to further develop a TJR core measurement set that can harmonize reporting in TJR clinical trials.