Search

Background: The commonly used ('legacy') PROMs evaluating outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA), have several limitations regarding their measurement properties and interpretation of scores. One innovation in PROMs is the use of Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) is a validated system of CATs. The aim of this study was to assess the measurement properties of PROMIS and legacy instruments in patients undergoing THA. Methodology: Patients in this multicenter study filled out a questionnaire twice, including Dutch-Flemish PROMIS v1.2 Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) and v1.1 Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) CATs and short forms, PROMIS v1.0 Pain Intensity, and legacy PROMs (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), HOOS-Physical function Shortform (HOOS-PS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and two numeric rating scales measuring pain). The reliability, measurement precision (Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)), smallest detectable change (SDC), and burden of PROMIS instruments were presented head-to-head to legacy PROMs. Furthermore, construct validity was assessed. Results: 208 patients were included. All instruments had a sufficient test-retest reliability (range ICC: 0.83–0.96). The SEM of PROMIS CATs and short forms ranged from 1.8 to 2.2 T-score points, the SEM of legacy instruments 2.6–11.1. The SDC of PROMIS instruments ranged from 2.1 to 7.3 T-score points, the SDC of legacy instruments 7.2–30.9. The construct validity of PROMIS CAT and short forms were found sufficient, except for the PROMIS-PI short form. The burden of PROMIS CATs was smaller than PROMIS short forms (range 4.8–5.2 versus 8–20 items, respectively). The burden of legacy instruments measuring physical functioning ranged from 5 to 40 items. Conclusions: The PROMIS-PF is less burdensome, with high measurement precision, and almost no minimal or maximal scores, and an equal reliability compared to legacy instruments measuring physical functioning in patients undergoing THA. The PROMIS Pain Intensity 1a is comparable to the legacy pain instruments in terms of burden, reliability and SDC. Measuring the construct Pain Interference may not have additional value in this population because of its high correlation with instruments measuring physical functioning. The SDC values presented in this study can be used for individual patient monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify subgroups of patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed degenerative meniscus tears who may benefit from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in comparison with non-surgical or sham treatment., Methods: Individual participant data (IPD) from four RCTs were pooled (605 patients, mean age: 55 (SD: 7.5), 52.4% female) as to investigate the effectiveness of APM in patients with MRI-confirmed degenerative meniscus tears compared to non-surgical or sham treatment. Primary outcomes were knee pain, overall knee function, and health-related quality of life, at 24 months follow-up (0-100). The IPD were analysed in a one- and two-stage meta-analyses. Identification of potential subgroups was performed by testing interaction effects of predefined patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender, mechanical symptoms) and APM for each outcome. Additionally, generalized linear mixed-model trees were used for subgroup detection., Results: The APM group showed a small improvement over the non-surgical or sham group on knee pain at 24 months follow-up (2.5 points (95% CI: 0.8-4.2) and 2.2 points (95% CI: 0.9-3.6), one- and two-stage analysis, respectively). Overall knee function and health-related quality of life did not differ between the two groups. Across all outcomes, no relevant subgroup of patients who benefitted from APM was detected. The generalized linear mixed-model trees did also not identify a subgroup., Conclusions: No relevant subgroup of patients was identified that benefitted from APM compared to non-surgical or sham treatment. Since we were not able to identify any subgroup that benefitted from APM, we recommend a restrained policy regarding meniscectomy in patients with degenerative meniscus tears., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Current literature is inconclusive about the optimal treatment of elderly patients with displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures. Cast treatment is less invasive and less expensive than surgical treatment. Nevertheless, surgery is often the preferred treatment for this common type of distal radius fracture. Patients with a non-acceptable position after closed reduction are more likely to benefit from surgery than patients with an acceptable position after closed reduction. Therefore, this study aims to assess non-inferiority of functional outcomes after casting versus surgery in elderly patients with a non-acceptable position following a distal radius fracture., Methods and Analysis: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a non-inferiority design and an economic evaluation alongside. The population consists of patients aged 65 years and older with a displaced intra-articular distal radius fracture with non-acceptable radiological characteristics following either inadequate reduction or redisplacement after adequate reduction. Patients will be randomised between surgical treatment (open reduction and internal fixation) and non-operative treatment (closed reduction followed by cast treatment). We will use two age strata (65-75 and >75 years of age) and a web-based mixed block randomisation. A total of 154 patients will be enrolled and evaluated with the patient-rated wrist evaluation as the primary outcome at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D), wrist range of motion, grip strength and adverse events. In addition, we will perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from a societal and healthcare perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be presented., Ethics and Dissemination: The Research and Ethics Committee approved this RCT (NL56858.100.16). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal. We will present the results of this study at (inter)national conferences and disseminate the results through guideline committees., Trial Registration Number: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03009890). Dutch Trial Registry (NTR6365)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)