Swiss Orthopaedics Minimal Dataset: First Pilot Report of Reliability and Validity

IF 1.2 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Advances in Orthopedics Pub Date : 2020-12-29 DOI:10.1155/2020/6673175
T. Jentzsch, C. Dora, U. Müller, M. Farshad
{"title":"Swiss Orthopaedics Minimal Dataset: First Pilot Report of Reliability and Validity","authors":"T. Jentzsch, C. Dora, U. Müller, M. Farshad","doi":"10.1155/2020/6673175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. The Swiss Orthopaedics Minimal Dataset (SOMD) was launched seven years ago. It is a standardized, generic, and patient-reported outcome questionnaire, comprising ten items (location of disease, pain within the past four weeks, limitations at work/leisure/sleep/autonomy, subjective value of a body part, employment status, work disability (sick leave/pension), and household support). We conducted this study about the SOMD to report its reliability, validity, and clinical applicability. Methods. A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted. The test-retest study population (n = 60; lost to follow-up: n = 7 (12%)) was drawn from three retirement homes (in 2013), while the test study population (n = 14,180; excluded (e.g., duplicates): n = 1,990 (14%)) consisted of patients from a university hospital (in 2014–2017). In the test-retest study population, the same questionnaire was completed twice (at days 0 and 7). In the test study population, only the first questionnaire was included (to avoid duplicates). In a subgroup of the test study population (n = 302), only those patients who completed the SOMD and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) of the hip within 14 days were considered (to minimize recall bias). Reliability (test-retest and internal consistency), criterion validity for the item of pain, and return rates were analyzed. Results. The test-retest study population (n = 53) showed very high test-retest reliability for all tested items of the SOMD (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96–1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.00), ). The test study population (n = 12,190) revealed good internal consistency reliability for all ten items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80). The return rates of the SOMD were improvable (43% in 2016 and 31% in 2017). The subgroup of the test study population (n = 302) displayed a borderline acceptable criterion validity (correlation of the item of pain between SOMD and WOMAC hip: rho = 0.62, ). Conclusion. This is the first report about the validation of the SOMD. A relatively high reliability (test-retest and internal consistency), borderline acceptable (criterion) validity for the item of pain, and improvable clinical implementation were observed. This analysis serves as the basis for a structured modification of the SOMD to improve its value.","PeriodicalId":7358,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Orthopedics","volume":"2020 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6673175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. The Swiss Orthopaedics Minimal Dataset (SOMD) was launched seven years ago. It is a standardized, generic, and patient-reported outcome questionnaire, comprising ten items (location of disease, pain within the past four weeks, limitations at work/leisure/sleep/autonomy, subjective value of a body part, employment status, work disability (sick leave/pension), and household support). We conducted this study about the SOMD to report its reliability, validity, and clinical applicability. Methods. A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted. The test-retest study population (n = 60; lost to follow-up: n = 7 (12%)) was drawn from three retirement homes (in 2013), while the test study population (n = 14,180; excluded (e.g., duplicates): n = 1,990 (14%)) consisted of patients from a university hospital (in 2014–2017). In the test-retest study population, the same questionnaire was completed twice (at days 0 and 7). In the test study population, only the first questionnaire was included (to avoid duplicates). In a subgroup of the test study population (n = 302), only those patients who completed the SOMD and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) of the hip within 14 days were considered (to minimize recall bias). Reliability (test-retest and internal consistency), criterion validity for the item of pain, and return rates were analyzed. Results. The test-retest study population (n = 53) showed very high test-retest reliability for all tested items of the SOMD (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96–1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.00), ). The test study population (n = 12,190) revealed good internal consistency reliability for all ten items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80). The return rates of the SOMD were improvable (43% in 2016 and 31% in 2017). The subgroup of the test study population (n = 302) displayed a borderline acceptable criterion validity (correlation of the item of pain between SOMD and WOMAC hip: rho = 0.62, ). Conclusion. This is the first report about the validation of the SOMD. A relatively high reliability (test-retest and internal consistency), borderline acceptable (criterion) validity for the item of pain, and improvable clinical implementation were observed. This analysis serves as the basis for a structured modification of the SOMD to improve its value.
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
瑞士骨科最小数据集:可靠性和有效性的第一个试点报告
背景。瑞士骨科最小数据集(SOMD)于七年前推出。这是一份标准化的、通用的、病人报告的结果问卷,包括十个项目(疾病位置、过去四周内的疼痛、工作/休闲/睡眠/自主的限制、身体部位的主观价值、就业状况、工作残疾(病假/养恤金)和家庭支持)。我们进行了这项关于SOMD的研究,以报告其信度、效度和临床适用性。方法。进行回顾性观察队列研究。重测研究人群(n = 60;失访:n = 7(12%))来自三家养老院(2013年),而测试研究人群(n = 14,180;排除(例如,重复):n = 1990(14%))由来自大学医院的患者组成(2014-2017年)。在重测研究人群中,相同的问卷填写了两次(第0天和第7天)。在测试研究人群中,仅包括第一次问卷(避免重复)。在测试研究人群的一个亚组中(n = 302),仅考虑那些在14天内完成SOMD和西安大略省和麦克马斯特大学髋关节骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)的患者(以尽量减少回忆偏差)。对疼痛项目的信度(重测和内部一致性)、效度和回归率进行分析。结果。重测研究群体(n = 53)显示,SOMD所有测试项目的重测信度都非常高(类内相关系数= 0.96-1.00(95%置信区间0.93-1.00),)。测试研究群体(n = 12,190)显示所有10个项目的内部一致性信度良好(Cronbach 's alpha = 0.80)。SOMD的回报率有所提高(2016年为43%,2017年为31%)。试验研究人群的亚组(n = 302)显示出边缘性可接受的标准效度(SOMD与WOMAC髋关节之间疼痛项的相关性:rho = 0.62)。结论。这是关于SOMD验证的第一份报告。疼痛项目具有较高的信度(重测和内部一致性)、边缘性可接受效度(标准效度)和临床执行情况的改善。该分析可作为对SOMD进行结构化修改以提高其价值的基础。
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
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Orthopedics is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for orthopaedics working on improving the quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to arthroplasty, hand surgery, limb reconstruction, pediatric orthopaedics, sports medicine, trauma, spinal deformities, and orthopaedic oncology.
期刊最新文献
Addressing Knee Osteoarthritis Pathology Through Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment: A Comprehensive Review. Is Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction "Silva Technique" Equal to All-Inside Techniques? A Prospective Single-Center Study: An Alternative ACL All-Inside Reconstruction Technique Using a Tibial Tunnel and Bone Graft. Implant Survival of an Uncemented Modular Femoral Implant in Patients With Severe Femoral Bone Loss and 2-Stage Hip Revision. Regular Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Use Increases Stress Fracture Risk in the General Population: A Retrospective Case-Control Study. From Etiology to Intervention: A Holistic Review of Bunion Pathophysiology and Care.
×
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:481959085
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