Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Routinely: An Example in the Context of Elective Shoulder Surgery

J. Dawson, Katherine Rogers, H. Doll, R. Fitzpatrick, C. Cooper, A. Carr
{"title":"Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Routinely: An Example in the Context of Elective Shoulder Surgery","authors":"J. Dawson, Katherine Rogers, H. Doll, R. Fitzpatrick, C. Cooper, A. Carr","doi":"10.2174/1874297101003010042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This paper evaluates the usefulness of a set of PROMs data collected prospectively, in a relational database, over several years. The data were collected as part of routine practice, to audit patients undergoing shoulder surgery. Methods: Data, rendered anonymous, which included all upper limb surgical procedures and all outcome questionnaires (including Oxford Shoulder Score, OSS) data, were downloaded, prepared and analysed to produce the shoulder surgery study population. Details of procedures and questionnaires were merged by shoulder and analysed for completeness and accuracy. Pre- and post-operative OSS scores, with repeated observations from individual patients, were analysed using maximum likelihood mixed effects linear regression models. Results: Data preparation and cleaning was intensive. The final dataset contained 2110 questionnaires representing 815 surgical procedures and 755 patients. In relation to procedures, only 538 (66%) had a pre- and post-operative OSS score: 78 (9.5%) a pre-operative OSS only, 199 (24.4%) a post-operative OSS only, and 31 (3.8%) no OSS completed. OSS questionnaires had been completed in varying numbers and at varying times per procedure. There was a considerable amount of 'missing' data that was not missing completely at random. Missing data had a significant influence on OSS scores. Conclusions: In the absence of a research question (eg. exploratory research, descriptive audits, registers), a reason for collecting PROMs data should be stipulated and methods of data collection and storage standardised. Poor data cannot be 'fixed' in statistical analysis; statistical advice should be sought during the planning stages.","PeriodicalId":87834,"journal":{"name":"The open epidemiology journal","volume":"4 1","pages":"42-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The open epidemiology journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874297101003010042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: This paper evaluates the usefulness of a set of PROMs data collected prospectively, in a relational database, over several years. The data were collected as part of routine practice, to audit patients undergoing shoulder surgery. Methods: Data, rendered anonymous, which included all upper limb surgical procedures and all outcome questionnaires (including Oxford Shoulder Score, OSS) data, were downloaded, prepared and analysed to produce the shoulder surgery study population. Details of procedures and questionnaires were merged by shoulder and analysed for completeness and accuracy. Pre- and post-operative OSS scores, with repeated observations from individual patients, were analysed using maximum likelihood mixed effects linear regression models. Results: Data preparation and cleaning was intensive. The final dataset contained 2110 questionnaires representing 815 surgical procedures and 755 patients. In relation to procedures, only 538 (66%) had a pre- and post-operative OSS score: 78 (9.5%) a pre-operative OSS only, 199 (24.4%) a post-operative OSS only, and 31 (3.8%) no OSS completed. OSS questionnaires had been completed in varying numbers and at varying times per procedure. There was a considerable amount of 'missing' data that was not missing completely at random. Missing data had a significant influence on OSS scores. Conclusions: In the absence of a research question (eg. exploratory research, descriptive audits, registers), a reason for collecting PROMs data should be stipulated and methods of data collection and storage standardised. Poor data cannot be 'fixed' in statistical analysis; statistical advice should be sought during the planning stages.
常规使用患者报告的结果测量(PROMs):择期肩部手术的一个例子
目的:本文评估了一组预先收集的PROMs数据的有用性,在一个关系数据库中,过去几年。这些数据是作为常规实践的一部分收集的,用于审核接受肩部手术的患者。方法:数据采用匿名方式,包括所有上肢手术和所有结局问卷(包括牛津肩部评分,OSS)数据,下载、准备和分析以产生肩部手术研究人群。程序和问卷的细节由肩部合并,并分析其完整性和准确性。采用最大似然混合效应线性回归模型分析术前和术后OSS评分,并对个别患者进行重复观察。结果:资料的准备和清洗是密集的。最终的数据集包含2110份问卷,代表815种外科手术和755名患者。在手术方面,只有538例(66%)有术前和术后OSS评分:78例(9.5%)术前仅完成OSS, 199例(24.4%)术后仅完成OSS, 31例(3.8%)未完成OSS。OSS调查表在每个程序的不同数量和不同时间完成。有相当数量的“丢失”数据并非完全随机丢失。数据缺失对OSS评分有显著影响。结论:在没有研究问题的情况下(如:探索性研究、描述性审计、登记),应规定收集prom数据的原因,并规范数据收集和存储的方法。在统计分析中,糟糕的数据不能“固定”;在规划阶段应征求统计方面的意见。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书