The development and internal validation of a model to predict functional recovery after trauma

Is patient-reported outcome after treatment of unstable pelvic ring injuries related to pelvic symmetry? A prospective study

PURPOSE

To determine the relation between pelvic symmetry, as measured by the cross-measurement technique, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in terms of functional status and health-related quality of life.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, X and Y measurements were taken according to the cross-measurement technique on AP radiographs of patients who were treated for an unstable pelvic ring injury in a level-1 trauma center. Patients completed PROMs at the time of admission (recalled pre-injury score) and one year following their injury, reporting their functional status with the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA-NL), specifically the lower extremity dysfunction (LED), problems with daily activities (PDA) and mental and emotional problems (MEP) subscales, and quality of life with EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Subgroup analyses were also performed. PROMs were used to analyze the relation between pelvic symmetry and patient-reported outcome, using Spearman's Rank correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients (mean age 58 (SD18) years) with an unstable pelvic ring injury were included, of which 95 (73%) sustained type-B injuries and 35 (27%) type-C injuries. Sixty-three (49%) patients were treated operatively. The median pelvic symmetry ratio was 1.01 (IQR: 0.05). Weak or no correlations were found between the pelvic symmetry scores and the outcome measurements (Spearman's correlation coefficients: LED r = 0.09; PDA r = 0.11; MEP r=-0.02; and EQ-5D r=-0.08). Subgroup analyses revealed no correlations.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant relation was found between pelvic symmetry, measured radiologically, and functional status and health-related quality of life, one year following an unstable pelvic ring injury.

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes after polytrauma - instruments and methods: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We (1) collected instruments that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), activities of daily living (ADL) and social participation during follow-up after polytrauma, (2) described their use and (3) investigated other relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed in the studies.

DESIGN

Systematic Review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, as well as the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched from January 2005 to April 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All original empirical research published in English or German including PROs of patients aged 18-75 years with an Injury Severity Score≥16 and/or an Abbreviated Injury Scale≥3. Studies with defined injuries or diseases (e.g. low-energy injuries) and some text types (e.g. grey literature and books) were excluded. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded, but references screened for appropriate studies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction, narrative content analysis and a critical appraisal (e.g. UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) were performed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3496 hits; 54 publications were included. Predominantly, HRQoL was assessed, with Short Form-36 Health Survey applied most frequently. ADL and (social) participation were rarely assessed. The methods most used were postal surveys and single assessments of PROs, with a follow-up period of one to one and a half years. Other relevant PRO areas reported were function, mental disorders and pain.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a large variation in the assessment of PROs after polytrauma, impairing comparability of outcomes. First efforts to standardise the collection of PROs have been initiated, but require further harmonisation between central players. Additional knowledge on rarely reported PRO areas (e.g. (social) participation, social networks) may lead to their consideration in health services provision.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017060825.

Prediction of recovery in trauma patients using Latent Markov models

PURPOSE

Patients' expectations during recovery after a trauma can affect the recovery. The aim of the present study was to identify different physical recovery trajectories based on Latent Markov Models (LMMs) and predict these recovery states based on individual patient characteristics.

METHODS

The data of a cohort of adult trauma patients until the age of 75 years with a length of hospital stay of 3 days and more were derived from the Brabant Injury Outcome Surveillance (BIOS) study. The EuroQol-5D 3-level version and the Health Utilities Index were used 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after injury. Four prediction models, for mobility, pain, self-care, and daily activity, were developed using LMMs with ordinal latent states and patient characteristics as predictors for the latent states.

RESULTS

In total, 1107 patients were included. Four models with three ordinal latent states were developed, with different covariates in each model. The prediction of the (ordinal) latent states in the LMMs yielded pseudo-R² values between 40 and 53% and between 21 and 41% (depending of the type R² used) and classification errors between 24 and 40%. Most patients seem to recover fast as only about a quarter of the patients remain with severe problems after 1 month.

CONCLUSION

The use of LMMs to model the development of physical function post-injury is a promising way to obtain a prediction of the physical recovery. The step-by-step prediction fits well with the outpatient follow-up and it can be used to inform the patients more tailor-made to manage the expectations.

Prospective observational study to examine health-related quality of life and develop models to predict long-term patient-reported outcomes 6 months after hospital discharge with blunt thoracic injuries

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the long-term outcomes and health-related quality of life in patients with blunt thoracic injuries over 6 months from hospital discharge and develop models to predict long-term patient-reported outcomes.

DESIGN

A prospective observational study using longitudinal survey design.

SETTING

The study recruitment was undertaken at 12 UK hospitals which represented diverse geographical locations and covered urban, suburban and rural areas across England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

337 patients admitted to hospital with blunt thoracic injuries were recruited between June 2018-October 2020.

METHODS

Participants completed a bank of two quality of life surveys (Short Form-12 (SF-12) and EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels) and two pain questionnaires (Brief Pain Inventory and painDETECT Questionnaire) at four time points over the first 6 months after discharge from hospital. A total of 211 (63%) participants completed the outcomes data at 6 months after hospital discharge.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Three outcomes were measured using pre-existing and validated patient-reported outcome measures. Outcomes included: Poor physical function (SF-12 Physical Component Score); chronic pain (Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity Score); and neuropathic pain (painDETECT Questionnaire).

RESULTS

Despite a trend towards improving physical functional and pain at 6 months, outcomes did not return to participants perceived baseline level of function. At 6 months after hospital discharge, 37% (n=77) of participants reported poor physical function; 36.5% (n=77) reported a chronic pain state; and 22% (n=47) reported pain with a neuropathic component. Predictive models were developed for each outcome highlighting important data collection requirements for predicting long-term outcomes in this population. Model diagnostics including calibration and discrimination statistics suggested good model fit in this development cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the recovery trajectories for patients with blunt thoracic injuries over the first 6 months after hospital discharge and present prognostic models for three important outcomes which after external validation could be used as clinical risk stratification scores.