Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Bohm, ER, Kirby, S, Trepman, E, Hallstrom, BR, Rolfson, O, Wilkinson, JM, Sayers, A, Overgaard, S, Lyman, S, Franklin, PD, Dunn, J, Denissen, G, W-Dahl, A, Ingelsrud, LH & Navarro, RA 2021, 'Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations', Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 479, no. 10, pp. 2151-2166. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001852

APA

Bohm, E. R., Kirby, S., Trepman, E., Hallstrom, B. R., Rolfson, O., Wilkinson, J. M., Sayers, A., Overgaard, S., Lyman, S., Franklin, P. D., Dunn, J., Denissen, G., W-Dahl, A., Ingelsrud, L. H., & Navarro, R. A. (2021). Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 479(10), 2151-2166. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001852

CBE

Bohm ER, Kirby S, Trepman E, Hallstrom BR, Rolfson O, Wilkinson JM, Sayers A, Overgaard S, Lyman S, Franklin PD, Dunn J, Denissen G, W-Dahl A, Ingelsrud LH, Navarro RA. 2021. Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 479(10):2151-2166. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001852

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bohm, Eric R ; Kirby, Sarah ; Trepman, Elly ; Hallstrom, Brian R ; Rolfson, Ola ; Wilkinson, J Mark ; Sayers, Adrian ; Overgaard, Søren ; Lyman, Stephen ; Franklin, Patricia D ; Dunn, Jennifer ; Denissen, Geke ; W-Dahl, Annette ; Ingelsrud, Lina Holm ; Navarro, Ronald A. / Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries : Multinational Survey and Recommendations. In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2021 ; Vol. 479, No. 10. pp. 2151-2166.

Bibtex

@article{355e584d566b486586d3ed7eb20d8c44,
title = "Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Arthroplasty registries vary in PROM collection and use. Current information about registry collection and use of PROMs is important to help improve methods of PROM data analysis, reporting, comparison, and use toward improving clinical practice.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To characterize PROM collection and use by registries, we asked: (1) What is the current practice of PROM collection by arthroplasty registries that are current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries, and are there sufficient similarities in PROM collection between registries to enable useful international comparisons that could inform the improvement of arthroplasty care? (2) How do registries differ in PROM administration and demographic, clinical, and comorbidity index variables collected for case-mix adjustment in data analysis and reporting? (3) What quality assurance methods are used for PROMs, and how are PROM results reported and used by registries? (4) What recommendations to arthroplasty registries may improve PROM reporting and facilitate international comparisons?METHODS: An electronic survey was developed with questions about registry structure and collection, analysis, reporting, and use of PROM data and distributed to directors or senior administrators of 39 arthroplasty registries that were current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. In all, 64% (25 of 39) of registries responded and completed the survey. Missing responses from incomplete surveys were captured by contacting the registries, and up to three reminder emails were sent to nonresponding registries. Recommendations about PROM collection were drafted, revised, and approved by the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group members.RESULTS: Of the 25 registries that completed the survey, 15 collected generic PROMs, most frequently the EuroQol-5 Dimension survey; 16 collected joint-specific PROMs, most frequently the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; and 11 registries collected a satisfaction item. Most registries administered PROM questionnaires within 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. All 16 registries that collected PROM data collected patient age, sex or gender, BMI, indication for the primary arthroplasty, reason for revision arthroplasty, and a comorbidity index, most often the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. All 16 registries performed regular auditing and reporting of data quality, and most registries reported PROM results to hospitals and linked PROM data to other data sets such as hospital, medication, billing, and emergency care databases. Recommendations for transparent reporting of PROMs were grouped into four categories: demographic and clinical, survey administration, data analysis, and results.CONCLUSION: Although registries differed in PROM collection and use, there were sufficient similarities that may enable useful data comparisons. The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group recommendations identify issues that may be important to most registries such as the need to make decisions about survey times and collection methods, as well as how to select generic and joint-specific surveys, handle missing data and attrition, report data, and ensure representativeness of the sample.CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By collecting PROMs, registries can provide patient-centered data to surgeons, hospitals, and national entities to improve arthroplasty care.",
keywords = "Arthroplasty, Humans, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Quality Improvement, Surveys and Questionnaires",
author = "Bohm, {Eric R} and Sarah Kirby and Elly Trepman and Hallstrom, {Brian R} and Ola Rolfson and Wilkinson, {J Mark} and Adrian Sayers and S{\o}ren Overgaard and Stephen Lyman and Franklin, {Patricia D} and Jennifer Dunn and Geke Denissen and Annette W-Dahl and Ingelsrud, {Lina Holm} and Navarro, {Ronald A}",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.",
year = "2021",
month = oct,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/CORR.0000000000001852",
language = "English",
volume = "479",
pages = "2151--2166",
journal = "Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research",
issn = "0009-921X",
publisher = "Springer New York LLC",
number = "10",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries

T2 - Multinational Survey and Recommendations

AU - Bohm, Eric R

AU - Kirby, Sarah

AU - Trepman, Elly

AU - Hallstrom, Brian R

AU - Rolfson, Ola

AU - Wilkinson, J Mark

AU - Sayers, Adrian

AU - Overgaard, Søren

AU - Lyman, Stephen

AU - Franklin, Patricia D

AU - Dunn, Jennifer

AU - Denissen, Geke

AU - W-Dahl, Annette

AU - Ingelsrud, Lina Holm

AU - Navarro, Ronald A

N1 - Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.

PY - 2021/10/1

Y1 - 2021/10/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Arthroplasty registries vary in PROM collection and use. Current information about registry collection and use of PROMs is important to help improve methods of PROM data analysis, reporting, comparison, and use toward improving clinical practice.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To characterize PROM collection and use by registries, we asked: (1) What is the current practice of PROM collection by arthroplasty registries that are current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries, and are there sufficient similarities in PROM collection between registries to enable useful international comparisons that could inform the improvement of arthroplasty care? (2) How do registries differ in PROM administration and demographic, clinical, and comorbidity index variables collected for case-mix adjustment in data analysis and reporting? (3) What quality assurance methods are used for PROMs, and how are PROM results reported and used by registries? (4) What recommendations to arthroplasty registries may improve PROM reporting and facilitate international comparisons?METHODS: An electronic survey was developed with questions about registry structure and collection, analysis, reporting, and use of PROM data and distributed to directors or senior administrators of 39 arthroplasty registries that were current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. In all, 64% (25 of 39) of registries responded and completed the survey. Missing responses from incomplete surveys were captured by contacting the registries, and up to three reminder emails were sent to nonresponding registries. Recommendations about PROM collection were drafted, revised, and approved by the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group members.RESULTS: Of the 25 registries that completed the survey, 15 collected generic PROMs, most frequently the EuroQol-5 Dimension survey; 16 collected joint-specific PROMs, most frequently the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; and 11 registries collected a satisfaction item. Most registries administered PROM questionnaires within 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. All 16 registries that collected PROM data collected patient age, sex or gender, BMI, indication for the primary arthroplasty, reason for revision arthroplasty, and a comorbidity index, most often the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. All 16 registries performed regular auditing and reporting of data quality, and most registries reported PROM results to hospitals and linked PROM data to other data sets such as hospital, medication, billing, and emergency care databases. Recommendations for transparent reporting of PROMs were grouped into four categories: demographic and clinical, survey administration, data analysis, and results.CONCLUSION: Although registries differed in PROM collection and use, there were sufficient similarities that may enable useful data comparisons. The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group recommendations identify issues that may be important to most registries such as the need to make decisions about survey times and collection methods, as well as how to select generic and joint-specific surveys, handle missing data and attrition, report data, and ensure representativeness of the sample.CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By collecting PROMs, registries can provide patient-centered data to surgeons, hospitals, and national entities to improve arthroplasty care.

AB - BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Arthroplasty registries vary in PROM collection and use. Current information about registry collection and use of PROMs is important to help improve methods of PROM data analysis, reporting, comparison, and use toward improving clinical practice.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To characterize PROM collection and use by registries, we asked: (1) What is the current practice of PROM collection by arthroplasty registries that are current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries, and are there sufficient similarities in PROM collection between registries to enable useful international comparisons that could inform the improvement of arthroplasty care? (2) How do registries differ in PROM administration and demographic, clinical, and comorbidity index variables collected for case-mix adjustment in data analysis and reporting? (3) What quality assurance methods are used for PROMs, and how are PROM results reported and used by registries? (4) What recommendations to arthroplasty registries may improve PROM reporting and facilitate international comparisons?METHODS: An electronic survey was developed with questions about registry structure and collection, analysis, reporting, and use of PROM data and distributed to directors or senior administrators of 39 arthroplasty registries that were current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. In all, 64% (25 of 39) of registries responded and completed the survey. Missing responses from incomplete surveys were captured by contacting the registries, and up to three reminder emails were sent to nonresponding registries. Recommendations about PROM collection were drafted, revised, and approved by the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group members.RESULTS: Of the 25 registries that completed the survey, 15 collected generic PROMs, most frequently the EuroQol-5 Dimension survey; 16 collected joint-specific PROMs, most frequently the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; and 11 registries collected a satisfaction item. Most registries administered PROM questionnaires within 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. All 16 registries that collected PROM data collected patient age, sex or gender, BMI, indication for the primary arthroplasty, reason for revision arthroplasty, and a comorbidity index, most often the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. All 16 registries performed regular auditing and reporting of data quality, and most registries reported PROM results to hospitals and linked PROM data to other data sets such as hospital, medication, billing, and emergency care databases. Recommendations for transparent reporting of PROMs were grouped into four categories: demographic and clinical, survey administration, data analysis, and results.CONCLUSION: Although registries differed in PROM collection and use, there were sufficient similarities that may enable useful data comparisons. The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group recommendations identify issues that may be important to most registries such as the need to make decisions about survey times and collection methods, as well as how to select generic and joint-specific surveys, handle missing data and attrition, report data, and ensure representativeness of the sample.CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By collecting PROMs, registries can provide patient-centered data to surgeons, hospitals, and national entities to improve arthroplasty care.

KW - Arthroplasty

KW - Humans

KW - Patient Reported Outcome Measures

KW - Quality Improvement

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117426393&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001852

DO - 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001852

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 34288899

VL - 479

SP - 2151

EP - 2166

JO - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

JF - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

SN - 0009-921X

IS - 10

ER -

ID: 66872178