Towards Consensus on the Reporting of Core Outcome Domains in Total Joint Replacement Clinical Trials: The Derivation of the Preliminary Core Outcome Domain Set

J. Singh, M. Dohm
{"title":"Towards Consensus on the Reporting of Core Outcome Domains in Total Joint Replacement Clinical Trials: The Derivation of the Preliminary Core Outcome Domain Set","authors":"J. Singh, M. Dohm","doi":"10.4172/2167-7921.1000221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: There is no consensus on how to report total joint replacement (TJR) trials. To our knowledge, core outcome domains for TJR clinical trials have not been defined. Our objective was to develop data-driven, consensus-based, preliminary recommendations for core outcome domains for TJR clinical trials. \nMethod: We surveyed two groups of experts/stakeholders, who rated potential core outcome domains (mapped to Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Trials (OMERACT) filter 2.0 framework) for their relevance to TJR clinical trials during the 2014 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [AAOS] and Outcome Research Interest Group of the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) annual meeting and the 2014 OMERACT meeting. Ratings were on a 1-9 scale, 1-3 indicating domain of limited importance, 4-6 being important domain, and 7-9 being critically important domain. \nResults: Seventeen participants at the AAOS/ORS Outcomes Research Interest Group and 19 at OMERACT meeting completed the survey. At the two meetings, 73% and 36% were arthroplasty researcher/surgeons, 0% and 10% were patients and 58% and 31% were above 54 years, respectively. The following domains were rated as core outcome domains by both groups, with a median score of 7 and above (median score from AAOS/ORS vs. OMERACT): Joint pain (9 vs. 9), functional ability (8 vs. 9), joint-specific quality of life (8 vs. 7), patient satisfaction (7 vs. 8), revision surgery (8 vs. 7), adverse events (9 vs. 8), death (9 vs. 7.5), serious adverse events (8.5 vs. 8), reoperation (8 vs. 8), and cost (7 vs. 7). \nConclusion: Stakeholders achieved consensus on preliminary core outcome domain set for TJR clinical trials. This set will be further vetted with multi-stakeholder input to achieve a fully endorsed TJR core outcome domain set.","PeriodicalId":91304,"journal":{"name":"Journal of arthritis","volume":"5 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2167-7921.1000221","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of arthritis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-7921.1000221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus on how to report total joint replacement (TJR) trials. To our knowledge, core outcome domains for TJR clinical trials have not been defined. Our objective was to develop data-driven, consensus-based, preliminary recommendations for core outcome domains for TJR clinical trials. Method: We surveyed two groups of experts/stakeholders, who rated potential core outcome domains (mapped to Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Trials (OMERACT) filter 2.0 framework) for their relevance to TJR clinical trials during the 2014 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [AAOS] and Outcome Research Interest Group of the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) annual meeting and the 2014 OMERACT meeting. Ratings were on a 1-9 scale, 1-3 indicating domain of limited importance, 4-6 being important domain, and 7-9 being critically important domain. Results: Seventeen participants at the AAOS/ORS Outcomes Research Interest Group and 19 at OMERACT meeting completed the survey. At the two meetings, 73% and 36% were arthroplasty researcher/surgeons, 0% and 10% were patients and 58% and 31% were above 54 years, respectively. The following domains were rated as core outcome domains by both groups, with a median score of 7 and above (median score from AAOS/ORS vs. OMERACT): Joint pain (9 vs. 9), functional ability (8 vs. 9), joint-specific quality of life (8 vs. 7), patient satisfaction (7 vs. 8), revision surgery (8 vs. 7), adverse events (9 vs. 8), death (9 vs. 7.5), serious adverse events (8.5 vs. 8), reoperation (8 vs. 8), and cost (7 vs. 7). Conclusion: Stakeholders achieved consensus on preliminary core outcome domain set for TJR clinical trials. This set will be further vetted with multi-stakeholder input to achieve a fully endorsed TJR core outcome domain set.
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
对全关节置换术临床试验核心结果域报告的共识:初步核心结果域集的推导
背景:关于如何报道全关节置换术(TJR)试验尚无共识。据我们所知,TJR临床试验的核心结果领域尚未确定。我们的目标是为TJR临床试验的核心结果领域制定数据驱动的、基于共识的初步建议。方法:我们调查了两组专家/利益相关者,他们在2014年美国骨科医师学会[AAOS]和骨科研究学会(ORS)年度会议和2014年OMERACT会议上评估了潜在的核心结果域(映射到风湿病试验结果测量(OMERACT)过滤2.0框架)与TJR临床试验的相关性。评分范围为1-9,1-3表示有限重要领域,4-6表示重要领域,7-9表示极其重要领域。结果:AAOS/ORS结果研究兴趣小组的17名参与者和OMERACT会议的19名参与者完成了调查。在两次会议中,73%和36%是关节置换研究人员/外科医生,0%和10%是患者,58%和31%的人年龄在54岁以上。两组均将以下领域评为核心结果领域,中位评分为7分及以上(AAOS/ORS vs. OMERACT中位评分):关节疼痛(9分对9分)、功能能力(8分对9分)、关节特异性生活质量(8分对7分)、患者满意度(7分对8分)、翻修手术(8分对7分)、不良事件(9分对8分)、死亡(9分对7.5分)、严重不良事件(8.5分对8分)、再手术(8分对8分)和费用(7分对7分)。利益相关者就TJR临床试验的初步核心结果域达成共识。该集合将与多利益相关方的输入进一步审查,以实现一个完全认可的TJR核心结果域集。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ophthalmologic Manifestations Arthritis Gait analysis methods in rehabilitation Epicondyle a n d Apophysitis Methods in rehabilitation Rheumatoid Arthritis: Chronic Inflammatory Autoimmune Disease
×
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