↓ Skip to main content

Patient Endorsement of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Total Joint Replacement (TJR) clinical trial draft core domain set

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient Endorsement of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Total Joint Replacement (TJR) clinical trial draft core domain set
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1464-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasvinder A. Singh, Michelle Dowsey, Peter F. Choong

Abstract

A patient- and surgeon-Delphi-derived Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) draft core domain set for total joint arthroplasty (TJR) trials was recently developed. Our objective was to obtain further patient stakeholder endorsement of draft core domain set for TJR clinical trials. We surveyed two patient groups: (1) OMERACT patient partners; and (2) patients who had undergone hip or knee TJR. Patients received an introductory email with explanations about the core domain set and instructions to rate the core domains, i.e., important aspects, of OMERACT TJR clinical trial draft core domain set. Rating was on a nominal scale, where 1-3 indicated a domain of limited importance, 4-6 an important, but not critical domain, and 7-9 a critical domain. We used Mann-Whitney test (a non-parametric test) to compare the distribution of ratings between the two groups. Thirty one survey participants from the OMERACT patient partner group and 118 knee/hip TJR patients responded with response rates of 66 and 80%, respectively. Majority of the survey respondents were female, 87 vs. 53%, and were 55 years or older, 57 vs. 94%. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) scores for six core domains by OMERACT and knee/hip TJR patient groups were, respectively: pain, 8 [8, 9] and 9 [8, 9]; function, 9 [8, 9] and 9 [8, 9]; patient satisfaction, 8 [8, 9] and 8 [7, 9]; revision surgery, 7 [7, 8] and 7 [5, 9]; adverse events, 8 [7, 9] and 8 [6, 9]; and death, 9 [6, 9] and 9 [4, 9]. No statistically significant differences in rating were noted for any of the six core domains between the two groups (p ≥ 0.31). Among the additional domains, ratings for patient participation did not differ by group (p = 0.98), but ratings for cost were significantly different (p = 0.005). Patients provided qualitative feedback regarding core domains, and did not propose any modifications to the draft core domain set. Two separate patient stakeholder groups endorsed the OMERACT TJR draft core domain set for TJR trials.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 18%
Psychology 4 6%
Engineering 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 21 32%