Dataset Information

Patient-reported outcome measures following revision knee replacement: a review of PROM instrument utilisation and measurement properties using the COSMIN checklist.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to evaluate symptoms, health status or quality of life following discretionary revision (or re-revision) knee joint replacement, and (2) validated joint-specific PROMs, their measurement properties and quality of evidence.

Design

(1) Scoping review; (2) systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 1 July 2020 using the Oxford PROM filter unlimited by publication date or language.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Studies reporting on the development, validation or outcome of a joint-specific PROM for revision knee joint replacement were included.

Results

51 studies reported PROM outcomes using eight joint-specific PROMs. 27 out of 51 studies (52.9%) were published within the last 5 years. PROM development was rated 'inadequate' for each of the eight PROMs studied. Validation studies were available for only three joint-specific PROMs: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). 25 out of 27 (92.6%) measurement properties were rated insufficient, indeterminate or not assessed. The quality of supporting evidence was mostly low or very low. Each of the validated PROMs was rated 'B' (potential for recommendation but require further evaluation).

Conclusion

Joint-specific PROMs are increasingly used to report outcomes following revision knee joint replacement, but these instruments have insufficient evidence for their validity. Future research should be directed toward understanding the measurement properties of these instruments in order to inform clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the outcomes from joint-specific PROMs.

SUBMITTER: Sabah SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8532560 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This systematic review aimed to investigate the measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals. According to the PRISMA guidelines, a registered report protocol was previously published in this journal. Studies reporting the development and validation of acute and chronic pain scoring instruments based on behavioral and/or facial expressions of farm animals were searched. Data extraction and assessment were performed individually by two investigators using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Nine categories were assessed: two for scale development (general design requirements and development, and content validity and comprehensibility) and seven for measurement properties (internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness and cross-cultural validity). The overall strength of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) of each instrument was scored based on methodological quality, number of studies and studies' findings. Twenty instruments for three species (bovine, ovine and swine) were included. There was considerable variability concerning their development and measurement properties. Three behavior-based instruments scored high for strength of evidence: UCAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Unidimensional Composite Pain Scale for assessing postoperative pain in cattle), USAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Sheep Acute Composite Pain Scale) and UPAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Pig Composite Acute Pain Scale). Four instruments scored moderate for strength of evidence: MPSS (Multidimensional Pain Scoring System for bovine), SPFES (Sheep Pain Facial Expression Scale), LGS (Lamb Grimace Scale) and PGS-B (Piglet Grimace Scale-B). Most instruments (n = 13) scored low or very low for final overall evidence. Construct validity was the most reported measurement property followed by criterion validity and reliability. Instruments with reported validation are urgently required for pain assessment of buffalos, goats, camelids and avian species.

Project description:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools used to understand patient-focused outcomes from care. Various PROMs have been developed for patients with bladder cancer (BC), although the disease's heterogeneity makes selection difficult. Accurate measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) can only be achieved if the PROM chosen is 'fit for purpose' (i.e. psychometrically sound). Systematic reviews of psychometric properties are useful for selecting the best PROM for a specific purpose. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) developed a checklist to improve the selection of health measurement instruments as part of a review process. Our aims were to undertake a systematic review, using the COSMIN criteria, to assess the quality of studies that report the psychometric properties of PROMs used with people with BC and determine the psychometric quality of these PROMs. An electronic search of seven databases including PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE (PROSPERO reference CRD42016051974) was undertaken to identify English language publications, published between January 1990 and September 2017 that evaluated psychometric properties of PROMs used in BC research. Two researchers independently screened abstracts and selected full-text papers. Studies were rated on methodological quality using the COSMIN checklist. Overall, 4663 records were screened and 23 studies, reporting outcomes in 3568 patients, were evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. Most PROMs had limited information reported about their psychometric properties. Studies reporting on the Bladder Cancer Index (BCI) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Vanderbilt Cystectomy Index (FACT-VCI) provided the most detail and these PROMs could be evaluated on the most COSMIN properties. Based on the available evidence, no existing PROM stands out as the most appropriate to measure HRQL in BC populations. This is due to two factors; (i) the heterogeneity of BC and its treatments (ii) no PROM was evaluated on all COSMIN measurement properties due to a lack of validation studies. We suggest future evaluation of generic, cancer generic and BC-specific PROMs to better understand their application with BC populations and propose strategies to help clinicians and researchers.

Project description:Society has been increasingly concerned about the impact of pain on farm animal welfare. This systematic review aims to provide evidence relating to the measurement properties (i.e. reliability, validity, and sensitivity) of pain scoring instruments used for pain assessment in farm animals. A literature search will be performed using five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CAB abstracts and Biological Abstracts) and search terms related to pain, pain scales and different species of farm animals. Eligibility criteria will include full-text studies on the development and/or validation of acute and chronic pain scoring instruments for farm animals including bovine (beef and dairy), ovine, caprine, camel, swine and poultry. Exclusion criteria will include studies that report the use of pain scales for the validation of another instrument, or those reporting ethograms/list of behaviors potentially indicating pain without a scoring system. Study titles and their abstracts will be screened for eligibility by one investigator. Full-text articles will be independently reviewed for eligibility and evaluated by two investigators. Relevant information will be recorded and evaluated systematically according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist using an adapted data collection sheet. The following measurement properties and characteristics of the instruments will be assessed: content validity (internal consistency, structural and cross-cultural validity), reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness, interpretability and feasibility. Following the assessment of methodological quality and quality of the findings, evidence for each measurement property will be summarized into high, moderate, low or very low. This systematic review will provide further insights into the evidence-based measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals. It may identify possible gaps of knowledge with these tools as a potential target for future studies in farm animals with a positive impact on animal welfare.

Project description:BackgroundHip and knee arthroplasties are common and successful procedures, however, success and durability are not guaranteed. The revision burden, defined as the ratio of implant revisions to the total number of arthroplasties in a specific period, is a measure of the steady state of arthroplasty success in a given registry. This study examines the hypothesis that revision burden would be similar among contemporary joint replacement registries and improving over time compared with historic controls.MethodsWe evaluated the national joint registries of 5 health systems (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [AOANJRR]; National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man; New Zealand Joint Registry [NZJR]; Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register [SHAR] and Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register [SKAR]; and the American Joint Replacement Registry [AJRR]) for hip and knee revision burden over the past 4 years or since registry inception. Historic controls were obtained from previously published reports.ResultsThe 2014 hip revision burden varied from 9.7 percent (NJR) to 11.9 percent (NZJR), and the unweighted average was 10.4 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean hip revision burden was 11.9, 11.9, and 11.4 percent. The 2014 knee revision burden varied from to 6.0 percent (NJR) to 8.1 percent (AJRR), and the unweighted average for the 5 registries studied was 7.0 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean knee revision burden was 6.9, 7.0, and 7.0 percent. Historically, the observed hip revision burden was 15.8 percent and the knee revision burden 8.0 percent.ConclusionsRevision burden has gradually decreased for hip replacements and has remained relatively constant for knee replacements both for the last 4 years and compared to historic controls. Knee revision burden was lower than hip revision burden for each period examined. Revision burden is one measure that may be helpful in following the effect of changes in surgical technique and implant design over time in registry populations and may be a helpful way to compare overall results between registries.