Assessment of the Methodologic Quality of Medical and Surgical Clinical Trials in Patients with Arthroplasty

Postoperative Activity and Knee Function of Patients after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Sensor-Based Monitoring Study

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) are increasingly being used to assess knee function. The aim of the study was to record patients' activity levels and to detect new parameters for knee function in the early postoperative phase after TKA. Twenty patients (n = 20) were prospectively enrolled. Two sensors were attached to the affected leg. The data were recorded from the first day after TKA until discharge. Algorithms were developed for detecting steps, range of motion, horizontal, sitting and standing postures, as well as physical therapy. The mean number of steps increased from day 1 to discharge from 117.4 (SD ± 110.5) to 858.7 (SD ± 320.1), respectively. Patients' percentage of immobilization during daytime (6 a.m. to 8 p.m.) was 91.2% on day one and still 69.9% on the last day. Patients received daily continuous passive motion therapy (CPM) for a mean of 36.4 min (SD ± 8.2). The mean angular velocity at day 1 was 12.2 degrees per second (SD ± 4.4) and increased to 28.7 (SD ± 16.4) at discharge. This study shows that IMUs monitor patients' activity postoperatively well, and a wide range of interindividual motion patterns was observed. These sensors may allow the adjustment of physical exercise programs according to the patient's individual needs.

Better early functional outcome after short stem total hip arthroplasty? A prospective blinded randomised controlled multicentre trial comparing the Collum Femoris Preserving stem with a Zweymuller straight cementless stem total hip replacement for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip

OBJECTIVES

Primary aim was to compare the functional results at 3 months and 2 years between short and conventional cementless stem total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aim was to determine the feasibility of a double-blind implant-related trial.

DESIGN

A prospective blinded randomised controlled multicentre trial in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. All patients, research assistants, clinical assessors, investigators and data analysts were blinded to the type of prosthesis.

POPULATION

150 patients between 18 and 70 years with osteoarthritis of the hip, 75 in the short stem and 75 in the conventional stem group. Mean age: 60 years (SD 7).

INTERVENTIONS

the Collum Femoris Preserving short stem versus the Zweymuller Alloclassic conventional stem.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Dutch version of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Secondary outcomes measures: Harris Hip Score, the Physical Component Scale of the SF12, the Timed Up and Go test, Pain and the EQ-5D. Feasibility outcomes: continued blinding, protocol adherence and follow-up success rate.

RESULTS

No significant difference between the two groups. Mean HOOS total score in the short stem group increased 32.7 points from 36.6 (95% CI 32.9 to 40.2) preoperatively to 69.3 (95% CI 66.4 to 72.1) at 3 months follow-up. Mean HOOS total score in the conventional straight stem group increased 36.3 points from 37.1 (95% CI 33.9 to 40.3) preoperatively to 73.4 (95% CI 70.3 to 76.4) at 3 months follow-up. 91.2% of patients remained blinded at 2 years follow-up. Both protocol adherence and follow-up success rate were 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional result at 3 months and 2 years after short stem THA is not superior to conventional cementless THA. There were more perioperative and postoperative complications in the short stem group. Direct comparison of two hip implants in a double-blinded randomised controlled trial is feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR1560.

Quality of reporting in surgical randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

RCTs testing surgical interventions can change clinical practice. The adequate reporting of surgical trials is an important issue.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken by searching PubMed for two-arm parallel randomized trials assessing surgical interventions published in 2003 or 2013. Quality of reporting was evaluated against the CONSORT checklist containing 29 items (standard CONSORT plus CONSORT Extension for Trials Assessing Non-Pharmacological Treatments). Univariable and multivariable linear regression was undertaken to explore factors associated with quality of reporting measured with CONSORT scores.

RESULTS

Some 120 trials were identified and included. The mean(s.d.) CONSORT score was 12·7(4·0). Trials published in 2013 achieved a higher CONSORT score than those published in 2003 (mean 14·5(3·8) versus 10·8(3·4) respectively; P < 0·001). The extent to which these trials met the requirement for CONSORT reporting differed substantially across items: four of 29 items were reported adequately across trials, and seven were reported adequately in less than 20 per cent of trials. Less than 40 per cent of the trials described the additional items related to surgical interventions and care providers (such as nursing care and anaesthetic management). In multivariable regression analysis, trials published in 2013 (coefficient 3·05, 95 per cent c.i. 1·89 to 4·20) and multicentre studies (coefficient 2·08, 0·79 to 3·37) were associated with statistically higher quality of reporting.

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting in surgical trials has improved in the past decade. Overall quality, however, remains suboptimal, particularly in relation to details regarding surgical interventions and management.

Outcome Domains and Measures in Total Joint Replacement Clinical Trials: Can We Harmonize Them? An OMERACT Collaborative Initiative

Objective.

To develop a plan for harmonizing outcomes for people undergoing total joint replacement (TJR), to achieve consensus regarding TJR outcome research.

Methods.

The TJR working group met during the 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in Budapest, Hungary. Multiple conference calls preceded the face-to-face meeting. Brief presentations were made during a 1.5-h meeting, which included an overview of published systematic reviews of TJR trials and the results of a recent systematic review of TJR clinical trial outcome domains and measures. This was followed by discussion of potential core set areas/domains for TJR clinical trials (as per OMERACT Filter 2.0) as well as the challenges associated with the measurement of these domains.

Results.

Working group participants discussed which TJR clinical trial outcome domains/areas map to the inner versus outer core for core domain set. Several challenges were identified with TJR outcomes including how to best measure function after TJR, elucidating the source of the pre- and post-TJR joint pain being measured, joint-specific versus generic quality of life instruments and the importance of patient satisfaction and revision surgery as outcomes. A preliminary core domain set for TJR clinical trials was proposed and included pain, function, patient satisfaction, revision, adverse events, and death. This core domain set will be further vetted with a broader audience.

Conclusion.

An international effort with active collaboration with the orthopedic community to standardize key outcome domains and measures is under way with the TJR working group. This effort will be further developed with new collaborations.

Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2000 and 2010: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties

PURPOSE

The impact factors (IF) of orthopaedic journals is an important component in determining the future of orthopaedic research funding. We aim to characterise the trend in journal IF over the last decade and draw comparisons with other surgical specialties.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of impact factors from Journal Citation Reports between 2000 and 2010.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2010 the number of orthopaedic journals increased from 24 to 41, more than any other surgical specialty and the mean IF increased from 0.842 to 1.400. Journals printed in the English language had a significantly higher IF in the year 2010 (1.64 vs. 0.33, p = 0.01) than those printed in other languages. English language journals published in the US had significantly higher mean 2010 IF (1.932 vs. 1.243, p = 0.025) than those published in Europe, and this had changed compared with 2000 mean IF (0.978 Vs. 0.704, p = 0.360). Orthopaedics was ranked sixth out of 11 surgical subspecialties in 2000 but dropped to seventh out of 11 in 2010.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of orthopaedic journals has significantly increased over the last decade and this has been accompanied by a rise in mean IF. It is important that orthopaedics continues to improve the quality of research, which may help orthopaedic researchers secure funding in the future.

Revisiting sample size: are big trials the answer?

The superiority of the evidence generated in randomized controlled trials over observational data is not only conditional to randomization. Randomized controlled trials require proper design and implementation to provide a reliable effect estimate. Adequate random sequence generation, allocation implementation, analyses based on the intention-to-treat principle, and sufficient power are crucial to the quality of a randomized controlled trial. Power, or the probability of the trial to detect a difference when a real difference between treatments exists, strongly depends on sample size. The quality of orthopaedic randomized controlled trials is frequently threatened by a limited sample size. This paper reviews basic concepts and pitfalls in sample-size estimation and focuses on the importance of large trials in the generation of valid evidence.

A systematic survey of the quality of research reporting in general orthopaedic journals

The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the 'results' section not previously reported in the 'methods' section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.

Limits to clinical trials in surgical areas

Randomized clinical trials are considered to be the gold standard of evidence-based medicine nowadays. However, it is important that we point out some limitations of randomized clinical trials relating to surgical interventions. There are limitations that affect the external and internal validity of many surgical study designs. Some limitations can be bypassed, but can make it more difficult for the study to be carried out. Other limitations cannot be bypassed. When it is intended to extrapolate the result of a randomized clinical trial, the premise is that the performed or to be performed intervention will be similar wherever applied and/or for every doctor using it. However, no matter how standardized the technique may be, the results are not similar for all surgeons, which implies a significant limitation to surgical randomized clinical trials concerning external validity. When considering the various limitations presented for performing surgical trials capable of generating scientific evidence within the patterns currently proposed in the evidence level classifications of medical publications, it is necessary to rethink whether those scientific evidence levels are similarly applicable to surgical works and to nonsurgical trials. We currently live in a time of supposed ''inferiority'' of surgical scientific works under the optics of the current quality criteria for a ''suitable'' clinical trial.

An audit of Behcet's syndrome research: a 10-year survey

OBJECTIVE

data suggest that the use of disease control groups and proper use of power calculations were neglected in published reports. We surveyed these and other methodological shortcomings in reports published within the last decade about one specific topic, Behcet's syndrome. We reason that recognizing such methodological shortcomings will lead to better quality clinical and basic science articles.

METHODS

articles published in the 15 highest impact factor journals on rheumatology, ophthalmology, dermatology, and general medicine between January 1999 and January 2009 were searched for original reports on Behcet's syndrome. Study designs (study types and time element), control groups, demographic data, use of power calculations, and reporting of negative results were specifically tabulated.

RESULTS

most studies on Behcet's syndrome were cross-sectional (83%). Prospective longitudinal studies were few (7%). In a considerable proportion of papers (21%), some basic demographic data were missing. Power calculations were rare (3%) even in randomized controlled trials and were not considered at all in clinical hypothesis-testing. Disease control groups were present in slightly over half of clinical and laboratory original research, while just 13% of genetic association studies included disease controls. Only 12% of all reports concerned mainly negative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

a considerable number of the published research articles have methodological weaknesses. The generalizability of what we observed in Behcet's syndrome to other research topics needs to be formally studied.