Dataset Information

Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

The increased use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in orthopedics requires data on estimated minimal clinically important improvements (MCIIs) and patient-acceptable symptom states (PASSs). We wanted to find cut-points corresponding to minimal clinically important PRO change score and the acceptable postoperative PRO score, by estimating MCII and PASS 1 year after total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the EQ-5D.

Patients and methods

THA patients from 16 different departments received 2 PROs and additional questions preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The PROs included were the HOOS subscales pain (HOOS Pain), physical function short form (HOOS-PS), and hip-related quality of life (HOOS QoL), and the EQ-5D. MCII and PASS were estimated using multiple anchor-based approaches.

Results

Of 1,837 patients available, 1,335 answered the preoperative PROs, and 1,288 of them answered the 1-year follow-up. The MCIIs and PASSs were estimated to be: 24 and 91 (HOOS Pain), 23 and 88 (HOOS-PS), 17 and 83 (HOOS QoL), 0.31 and 0.92 (EQ-5D Index), and 23 and 85 (EQ-VAS), respectively. MCIIs corresponded to a 38-55% improvement from mean baseline PRO score and PASSs corresponded to absolute follow-up scores of 57-91% of the maximum score in THA patients 1 year after surgery.

Interpretation

This study improves the interpretability of PRO scores. The different estimation approaches presented may serve as a guide for future MCII and PASS estimations in other contexts. The cutoff points may serve as reference values in registry settings.

SUBMITTER: Paulsen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3940990 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo contextualize the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) by identifying a patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) threshold for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy and to investigate factors which correlated with postoperative FJS-12 score.MethodsAll patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) under the care of a single surgeon between January 2018 and November 2019 were prospectively identified and included. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis classification grade 2 or greater. Data (including FJS-12, EuroQol-5 Dimension-5L [EQ-5D-5L], visual analog scale (VAS), and 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) scores) were available before surgery and at a minimum of 1 year after surgery. PASS was calculated using an anchor-based approach and receiver operator characteristic curve analysis. Pearson correlation analysis was used to correlate preoperative and postoperative factors with postoperative FJS-12 score.ResultsSeventy-seven patients (54 female, 23 male; mean age 30.3 years [standard deviation {SD} 8.2]) were included. Linked longitudinal follow-up data were available for 65 patients (84%) at a mean of 23.8 months (SD 6.4). Six patients required reoperation. Mean postoperative FJS-12 score was 46.5 (SD 33.1) and mean change in score was 27.2 (SD 30.6, P < .001). The PASS threshold for the FJS-12 was 38.5 (sensitivity 80%, specificity 88%), and the area under the curve was 0.852 (95% confidence interval 0.752-0.951). Overall, 53.8% of patients achieved this score. Postoperative FJS-12 score has moderate correlations with preoperative EQ-5D-5L, iHOT-12, and FJS-12 scores, and strong correlations with EQ-5D-5L, iHOT-12 and VAS scores after surgery.ConclusionsWe report a postoperative PASS threshold of 38.5 points for the FJS-12 after hip arthroscopy for FAI in a United Kingdom population. This value can act as a quantifiable target for clinicians using the FJS-12 to monitor patient outcomes in practice. FJS-12 has strong correlations with EQ-5D-5L, iHOT-12, and VAS at a minimum 12 months after surgery.Clinical relevanceWe have calculated the patient acceptable symptomatic state of the Forgotten Joint Score to be 38.5 points at short-term follow-up. This can assist clinicians in determining whether surgical interventions related to hip arthroscopy for FAI are meaningful to the patient.

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically review studies using machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict whether patients undergoing total knee or total hip arthroplasty achieve an improvement as high or higher than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (classification problem).MethodsStudies were eligible to be included in the review if they collected PROMs both pre- and postintervention, reported the method of MCID calculation and applied ML. ML was defined as a family of models which automatically learn from data when selecting features, identifying nonlinear relations or interactions. Predictive performance must have been assessed using common metrics. Studies were searched on MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library. Study selection and risk of bias assessment (ROB) was conducted by two independent researchers.Results517 studies were eligible for title and abstract screening. After screening title and abstract, 18 studies qualified for full-text screening. Finally, six studies were included. The most commonly applied ML algorithms were random forest and gradient boosting. Overall, eleven different ML algorithms have been applied in all papers. All studies reported at least fair predictive performance, with two reporting excellent performance. Sample size varied widely across studies, with 587 to 34,110 individuals observed. PROMs also varied widely across studies, with sixteen applied to TKA and six applied to THA. There was no single PROM utilized commonly in all studies. All studies calculated MCIDs for PROMs based on anchor-based or distribution-based methods or referred to literature which did so. Five studies reported variable importance for their models. Two studies were at high risk of bias.DiscussionNo ML model was identified to perform best at the problem stated, nor can any PROM said to be best predictable. Reporting standards must be improved to reduce risk of bias and improve comparability to other studies.