Collection of Multiple Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (CRAM-PROMs) in orthopaedic trauma: a randomized trial to assess the impact of quantity on quality.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1016/j.otsr.2024.104076
Francesc A Marcano-Fernández, Carlos Prada, Sheila Sprague, Sofia Bzovsky, Jodi Gallant, Gina Del Fabbro, Herman Johal
{"title":"Collection of Multiple Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (CRAM-PROMs) in orthopaedic trauma: a randomized trial to assess the impact of quantity on quality.","authors":"Francesc A Marcano-Fernández, Carlos Prada, Sheila Sprague, Sofia Bzovsky, Jodi Gallant, Gina Del Fabbro, Herman Johal","doi":"10.1016/j.otsr.2024.104076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We rely on sound clinical research to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions. We are nowadays experiencing an increased utilization of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in research, for which there is good evidence on validity and reliability. However, these measures are often validated in isolation and not in a real-life setting where they are used in conjunction with other questionnaires and measures. Our study objective was to determine if the number of PROMs questionnaires completed by fracture patients affected their reliability; more specifically, the internal consistency of the EuroQuol Five Dimension-Five Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>Our hypothesis was that there is a progressive decline in reliability as we increase the number of questionnaires given to participants.</p><p><strong>Patients and method: </strong>This is a randomized study carried out in a single Level I academic trauma center. Patients presenting to the fracture clinic for follow-up were screened. Participants were randomly assigned to 4 groups: group 1 only answered the EuroQol Five Dimension-Five Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, group 2 answered one additional questionnaire before the EQ-5D-5L, group 3 answered two and group 4 answered three additional questionnaires before the EQ-5D-5L. The primary outcome measured was the internal consistency of the EQ-5D-5L as a measure of reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Enrolment was 115 participants. Twenty-eight participants were randomized to Group 1, 29 to Group 2, 29 to Group 3, and 29 to Group 4. There was a progressive decline of reliability as number of questionnaires increased except for a sudden rise in group 4. (Group 1: 0.83, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.91; Group 2: 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; Group 3: 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83; Group 4: 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90). Completeness was 100% for Group 1, 98.5% for Group 2, 100% for Group 3, and 92% for Group 4.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>These results cannot strongly support our initial hypothesis. Although there is an initial decrease in Cochran's alpha for Groups 2 and 3 consecutively, the sudden rise in group 4 limits the validity our results. Notwithstanding, researchers should consider these findings when designing their research trials to avoid potential misleading results. Hence, the number of given questionnaires in research should be limited in order for these to maintain their reliability.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>II.</p>","PeriodicalId":54664,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","volume":" ","pages":"104076"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2024.104076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We rely on sound clinical research to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions. We are nowadays experiencing an increased utilization of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in research, for which there is good evidence on validity and reliability. However, these measures are often validated in isolation and not in a real-life setting where they are used in conjunction with other questionnaires and measures. Our study objective was to determine if the number of PROMs questionnaires completed by fracture patients affected their reliability; more specifically, the internal consistency of the EuroQuol Five Dimension-Five Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire.

Hypothesis: Our hypothesis was that there is a progressive decline in reliability as we increase the number of questionnaires given to participants.

Patients and method: This is a randomized study carried out in a single Level I academic trauma center. Patients presenting to the fracture clinic for follow-up were screened. Participants were randomly assigned to 4 groups: group 1 only answered the EuroQol Five Dimension-Five Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, group 2 answered one additional questionnaire before the EQ-5D-5L, group 3 answered two and group 4 answered three additional questionnaires before the EQ-5D-5L. The primary outcome measured was the internal consistency of the EQ-5D-5L as a measure of reliability.

Results: Enrolment was 115 participants. Twenty-eight participants were randomized to Group 1, 29 to Group 2, 29 to Group 3, and 29 to Group 4. There was a progressive decline of reliability as number of questionnaires increased except for a sudden rise in group 4. (Group 1: 0.83, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.91; Group 2: 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; Group 3: 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83; Group 4: 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90). Completeness was 100% for Group 1, 98.5% for Group 2, 100% for Group 3, and 92% for Group 4.

Discussion: These results cannot strongly support our initial hypothesis. Although there is an initial decrease in Cochran's alpha for Groups 2 and 3 consecutively, the sudden rise in group 4 limits the validity our results. Notwithstanding, researchers should consider these findings when designing their research trials to avoid potential misleading results. Hence, the number of given questionnaires in research should be limited in order for these to maintain their reliability.

Level of evidence: II.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
骨科创伤中多种患者报告结果测量(CRAM-PROMs)的收集:一项评估数量对质量影响的随机试验。
背景:我们依靠完善的临床研究来确保医疗干预的安全性和有效性。目前,我们在研究中越来越多地使用患者报告结果测量(PROMs),这在有效性和可靠性方面有很好的证据。然而,这些措施往往是在孤立的情况下进行验证的,而不是在与其他问卷和措施结合使用的现实环境中进行验证。我们的研究目的是确定骨折患者完成PROMs问卷的数量是否会影响其可靠性;更具体地说,是EuroQuol五维度五层次(EQ-5D-5L)问卷的内部一致性。假设:我们的假设是,随着我们给参与者的问卷数量的增加,可靠性会逐渐下降。患者和方法:这是一项在单一一级学术创伤中心进行的随机研究。对到骨折诊所随访的患者进行筛选。参与者被随机分为4组:1组只回答EuroQol五维五水平(EQ-5D-5L)问卷,2组在进行EQ-5D-5L前回答1份问卷,3组在进行EQ-5D-5L前回答2份问卷,4组在进行EQ-5D-5L前回答3份问卷。测量的主要结果是EQ-5D-5L的内部一致性,作为可靠性的测量。结果:入组115名受试者。28名参与者随机分为第1组、29名至第2组、29名至第3组和29名至第4组。除了第4组的可靠性突然上升外,随着问卷数量的增加,可靠性逐渐下降。(第一组:0.83,95%置信区间(CI) 0.70 ~ 0.91;第二组:0.74,95% CI 0.56 ~ 0.87;第三组:0.68,95% CI 0.44 ~ 0.83;第4组:0.81,95% CI 0.68 ~ 0.90)。第1组的完整性为100%,第2组为98.5%,第3组为100%,第4组为92%。讨论:这些结果不能有力地支持我们最初的假设。虽然第2组和第3组的Cochran's alpha在开始时连续下降,但第4组的突然上升限制了我们结果的有效性。尽管如此,研究人员在设计他们的研究试验时应该考虑这些发现,以避免潜在的误导性结果。因此,在研究中给定问卷的数量应该是有限的,以保持它们的可靠性。证据水平:II。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
26.10%
发文量
329
审稿时长
12.5 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) publishes original scientific work in English related to all domains of orthopaedics. Original articles, Reviews, Technical notes and Concise follow-up of a former OTSR study are published in English in electronic form only and indexed in the main international databases.
期刊最新文献
A proposed surgical strategy for complex articular distal radius fractures: the Marseille approach for radius salvage (MARS). Bone defect size and healing outcomes in femoral and tibial fracture-related bone defects treated with the Masquelet technique. Clinical study on the treatment of complex sacral fractures with lumbopelvic fixation. Management of Low-Energy Ballistic Limb Injuries in French Trauma Centers. Proximal Humerus Fractures in Patients Over 65: Management Profile Based on National French PMSI Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1