Dataset Information

A patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique for orthopaedic trauma research.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This study aimed to address the current limitations of the use of composite endpoints in orthopaedic trauma research by quantifying the relative importance of clinical outcomes common to orthopaedic trauma patients and use those values to develop a patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique. METHODS:A Best-Worst Scaling choice experiment was administered to 396 adult surgically-treated fracture patients. Respondents were presented with ten choice sets, each consisting of three out of ten plausible clinical outcomes. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to determine the utilities associated with the outcomes. RESULTS:Death was the outcome of greatest importance (mean utility?=?-?8.91), followed by above knee amputation (-?7.66), below knee amputation (-?6.97), severe pain (-?5.90), deep surgical site infection (SSI) (-?5.69), bone healing complications (-?5.20), and moderate pain (-?4.59). Mild pain (-?3.30) and superficial SSI (-?3.29), on the other hand, were the outcomes of least importance to respondents. CONCLUSION:This study revealed that patients' relative importance towards clinical outcomes followed a logical gradient, with distinct and quantifiable preferences for each possible component outcome. These findings were incorporated into a novel composite endpoint weighting technique.

SUBMITTER: Udogwu UN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6933647 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique for orthopaedic trauma research.

Udogwu Ugochukwu N UN Howe Andrea A Frey Katherine K Isaac Marckenley M Connelly Daniel D Marinos Dimitrius D Baker Mitchell M Castillo Renan C RC Slobogean Gerard P GP O'Toole Robert V RV O'Hara Nathan N NN

BMC medical research methodology 20191226 1

<h4>Background</h4>This study aimed to address the current limitations of the use of composite endpoints in orthopaedic trauma research by quantifying the relative importance of clinical outcomes common to orthopaedic trauma patients and use those values to develop a patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique.<h4>Methods</h4>A Best-Worst Scaling choice experiment was administered to 396 adult surgically-treated fracture patients. Respondents were presented with ten choice sets, each ...[more]

PMID: 31878874

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare system. Many institutions implemented a government-mandated restructured set of safety and administrative protocols to treat urgent orthopaedic trauma patients. The objective of this study was to compare two cohorts of patients, a COVID group and non-COVID control group, and to evaluate the effectiveness of safety measures outlined in the Rutgers Orthopaedic Trauma Patient Safety Protocol (ROTPSP). Secondary outcomes were to elucidate risk factors for complications associated with fractures and COVID-19.MethodsPatients treated for orthopaedic traumatic injuries were retrospectively identified between March and May 2020, and compared to a series of patients from the same time period in 2018. Main outcome measures included surgical site infections (SSI), length of stay (LOS), post-operative LOS (poLOS), presentation to OR time (PORT), and length of surgery.ResultsAfter review, 349 patients (201 non-COVID, 148 COVID) undergoing 426 surgeries were included. Average LOS (11.91 days vs. 9.27 days, p = 0.04), poLOS (9.68 days vs. 7.39 days, p = 0.03), and PORT (30.56 vs. 25.59 h, p < 0.01) was significantly shorter in the COVID cohort. There were less SSI in the COVID group (5) compared to the non-COVID group (14) (p = 0.03). Overall complications were significantly lower in the COVID group. Patients receiving Cepheid tests had significantly shorter LOS and poLOS compared to patients receiving the RNA and DiaSorin tests (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). The Cepheid test carried the best benefit-to-cost ratio, 0.10, p < 0.05.ConclusionThe restructuring of care protocols caused by COVID-19 did not negatively impact perioperative complication rates, PORT or LOS. Cepheid COVID test type administered upon admission plays an integral role in a patient's hospital course by reducing both length of stay and hospital costs. This information demonstrates we can continue to treat orthopaedic trauma patients safely during the COVID-19 pandemic by utilizing strict safety protocols.

Project description:BackgroundPrior studies have assessed provider knowledge and factors associated with opioid misuse; similar studies evaluating patient knowledge are lacking. The purpose of this study was to assess the degree of understanding regarding opioid use in orthopaedic trauma patients. We also sought to determine the demographic factors and clinical and personal experiences associated with level of understanding.MethodsOne hundred and sixty-six adult orthopaedic trauma surgery patients across two clinical sites of an academic institution participated in an internet-based survey (2352 invited, 7.1% response rate). Demographic, clinical, and personal experience variables, as well as perceptions surrounding opioid use were collected. Relationships between patient characteristics and opioid perceptions were identified using univariate and multivariable logistic regressions. Alpha = 0.05.ResultsExcellent recognition (> 85% correct) of common opioids, side effects, withdrawal symptoms, and disposal methods was demonstrated by 29%, 10%, 30%, and 2.4% of patients; poor recognition (< 55%) by 11%, 56%, 33%, and 52% of patients, respectively. Compared with white patients, non-white patients had 7.8 times greater odds (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-31) of perceiving addiction discrepancy (p = 0.004). Employed patients with higher education levels were less likely to have excellent understanding of side effects (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.06, 95% CI 0.006-0.56; p = 0.01) and to understand that dependence can occur within 2 weeks (aOR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.86; p = 0.03) than unemployed patients. Patients in the second least disadvantaged ADI quartile were more knowledgeable about side effects (aOR 8.8, 95% CI 1.7-46) and withdrawal symptoms (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.0-7.2; p = 0.046) than those in the least disadvantaged quartile. Patients who knew someone who was dependent or overdosed on opioids were less likely to perceive addiction discrepancy (aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.76; p = 0.02) as well as more likely to have excellent knowledge of withdrawal symptoms (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-6.5, p = 0.03) and to understand that dependence can develop within 2 weeks (aOR 3.8, 95% CI 1.5-9.8, p = 0.005).ConclusionsLevel of understanding regarding opioid use is low among orthopaedic trauma surgery patients. Clinical and personal experiences with opioids, in addition to demographics, should be emphasized in the clinical history.

Project description:Introduction/objectivesThe engagement of patients and other stakeholders is a critical element in the design of patient-centered outcomes research studies. However, methodology for scalable engagement in research management particularly activities such as operationalization of principles and setting of priorities is not well-developed. The objective of this study is to describe a novel approach for scalable stakeholder engagement in research aligned with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) engagement principles, which was evaluated in a national clinical data research network.Materials and methodsPatient, patient advocate, clinician, and researcher stakeholders were recruited from clinical sites, as well as social media sites related to the 3 conditions of focus, heart failure, obesity, and Kawasaki disease. The engagement strategy was designed, implemented, and mapped to the PCORI engagement principles. Evaluation included internal assessment and quantitative measures of online engagement.ResultsWe operationalized the PCORI principles with 12 stakeholder engagement strategies and convened stakeholder advisory boards and online research prioritization panels to determine research priorities in a rigorous, deliberative process. A total of 46 advisors (20 patients) and 339 panelists (159 patients) actively participated. There were not significant differences between patients and clinicians in level of online engagement. Nonetheless, while patients reported a slightly greater challenge with following online discussion, they overall had a more favorable opinion about use of the online format.Discussion/conclusionAn efficient way to engage large numbers of representative stakeholders in research is a necessary first step to assure the public of trustworthy use of data networks for health research. This paper describes a comprehensive approach to engagement in patient-centered outcomes research management that informs ongoing development of rigorous methodologies in this area.

Dataset Information

A patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique for orthopaedic trauma research.

Publications

A patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique for orthopaedic trauma research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets