What is the optimal time point to assess patient-reported recovery after hip and knee replacement? a systematic review and analysis of routinely reported outcome data from the English patient-reported outcome measures programme

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/301625
Title:
What is the optimal time point to assess patient-reported recovery after hip and knee replacement? a systematic review and analysis of routinely reported outcome data from the English patient-reported outcome measures programme
Authors:
Browne, John P; Bastaki, Hamad; Dawson, Jill
Citation:
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2013 Jul 30;11(1):128
Publisher:
BioMed Central
Journal:
Health and quality of life outcomes
Issue Date:
30-Jul-2013
URI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-128; http://hdl.handle.net/10147/301625
Abstract:
Abstract Background It is unclear if there is a clinically important improvement in the six to 12-month recovery period after hip and knee replacement. This is an obvious gap in the evidence required by patients undergoing these procedures. It is also an issue for the English PROMs (Patient-Reported Outcome Measures) Programme which uses 6-month outcome data to compare the results of hospitals that perform hip and knee replacements. Methods A systematic review of studies reporting the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) or Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at 12 months after surgery was performed. This was compared with six-month outcome data collected for 60, 160 patients within the English PROMs programme. A minimally important difference of one standard error of the measurement, equivalent to 2.7 for the OHS and 2.1 for the OKS, was adopted. Results and discussion Six studies reported OHS data for 10 different groups containing 8,308 patients in total. In eight groups the change scores reported were at least 2.7 points higher than the six-month change observed in the PROMs programme (20.2 points). Nine studies reported OKS data for 13 different groups containing 4,369 patients in total. In eight groups the change scores reported were at least 2.1 points higher than the six-month change observed in the PROMs programme (15.0 points). Conclusions There is some evidence from this systematic review that clinically important improvement in the Oxford hip and knee scores occurs in the six to 12 month recovery period. This trend is more apparent for hip than knee replacement. Therefore we recommend that the English Department of Health study the impact on hospital comparisons of using 12- rather than six-month outcome data.
Item Type:
Article
Language:
en
Keywords:
MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM; SURGERY
Local subject classification:
HIP REPLACEMENT; KNEE REPLACEMENT; OUTCOME MEASURES

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorBrowne, John Pen_GB
dc.contributor.authorBastaki, Hamaden_GB
dc.contributor.authorDawson, Jillen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-16T11:33:30Z-
dc.date.available2013-09-16T11:33:30Z-
dc.date.issued2013-07-30-
dc.identifier.citationHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2013 Jul 30;11(1):128en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-128-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/301625-
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background It is unclear if there is a clinically important improvement in the six to 12-month recovery period after hip and knee replacement. This is an obvious gap in the evidence required by patients undergoing these procedures. It is also an issue for the English PROMs (Patient-Reported Outcome Measures) Programme which uses 6-month outcome data to compare the results of hospitals that perform hip and knee replacements. Methods A systematic review of studies reporting the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) or Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at 12 months after surgery was performed. This was compared with six-month outcome data collected for 60, 160 patients within the English PROMs programme. A minimally important difference of one standard error of the measurement, equivalent to 2.7 for the OHS and 2.1 for the OKS, was adopted. Results and discussion Six studies reported OHS data for 10 different groups containing 8,308 patients in total. In eight groups the change scores reported were at least 2.7 points higher than the six-month change observed in the PROMs programme (20.2 points). Nine studies reported OKS data for 13 different groups containing 4,369 patients in total. In eight groups the change scores reported were at least 2.1 points higher than the six-month change observed in the PROMs programme (15.0 points). Conclusions There is some evidence from this systematic review that clinically important improvement in the Oxford hip and knee scores occurs in the six to 12 month recovery period. This trend is more apparent for hip than knee replacement. Therefore we recommend that the English Department of Health study the impact on hospital comparisons of using 12- rather than six-month outcome data.-
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_GB
dc.subjectMUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEMen_GB
dc.subjectSURGERYen_GB
dc.subject.otherHIP REPLACEMENTen_GB
dc.subject.otherKNEE REPLACEMENTen_GB
dc.subject.otherOUTCOME MEASURESen_GB
dc.titleWhat is the optimal time point to assess patient-reported recovery after hip and knee replacement? a systematic review and analysis of routinely reported outcome data from the English patient-reported outcome measures programmeen_GB
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalHealth and quality of life outcomesen_GB
dc.language.rfc3066en-
dc.rights.holderJohn Browne et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.-
dc.description.statusPeer Reviewed-
dc.date.updated2013-07-31T23:08:53Z-
All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.