关节镜下半月板部分切除术治疗退行性半月板撕裂:随机对照试验和前瞻性队列研究中患者的比较

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Stan R W Wijn, Gerjon Hannink, Jonas B Thorlund, Raine Sihvonen, Martin Englund, Maroeska M Rovers
{"title":"关节镜下半月板部分切除术治疗退行性半月板撕裂:随机对照试验和前瞻性队列研究中患者的比较","authors":"Stan R W Wijn, Gerjon Hannink, Jonas B Thorlund, Raine Sihvonen, Martin Englund, Maroeska M Rovers","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2023.24576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Concerns exist regarding the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) to treat degenerative meniscus tears. It has been suggested that study populations are not representative of subjects selected for surgery in daily clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to compare patients included in trials and prospective cohort studies that received APM for a degenerative meniscus tear.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Individual participant data from 4 RCTs and 2 cohort studies undergoing APM were collected. 1,970 patients were analyzed: 605 patients included in RCTs and 1,365 included in the cohorts. We compared patient and disease characteristics, knee pain, overall knee function, and health-related quality of life at baseline between the RCT and cohort groups using standardized differences, ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates, and graphical methods such as quantile-quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Differences between RCT and the cohort were observed primarily in age (younger patients in the cohort; standardized difference: 0.32) and disease severity, with the RCT group having more severe symptoms (standardized difference: 0.38). While knee pain, overall knee function, and quality of life generally showed minimal differences between the 2 groups, it is noteworthy that the largest observed difference was in knee pain, where the cohort group scored 7 points worse (95% confidence interval 5-9, standardized difference: 0.29).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients in RCTs were largely representative of those in cohort studies regarding baseline scores, though variations in age and disease severity were observed. Younger patients with less severe osteoarthritis were more common in the cohort; however, trial participants still appear to be broadly representative of the target population.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"94 ","pages":"570-576"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10690978/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for the degenerative meniscus tear: a comparison of patients included in RCTs and prospective cohort studies.\",\"authors\":\"Stan R W Wijn, Gerjon Hannink, Jonas B Thorlund, Raine Sihvonen, Martin Englund, Maroeska M Rovers\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/17453674.2023.24576\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Concerns exist regarding the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) to treat degenerative meniscus tears. It has been suggested that study populations are not representative of subjects selected for surgery in daily clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to compare patients included in trials and prospective cohort studies that received APM for a degenerative meniscus tear.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Individual participant data from 4 RCTs and 2 cohort studies undergoing APM were collected. 1,970 patients were analyzed: 605 patients included in RCTs and 1,365 included in the cohorts. We compared patient and disease characteristics, knee pain, overall knee function, and health-related quality of life at baseline between the RCT and cohort groups using standardized differences, ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates, and graphical methods such as quantile-quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Differences between RCT and the cohort were observed primarily in age (younger patients in the cohort; standardized difference: 0.32) and disease severity, with the RCT group having more severe symptoms (standardized difference: 0.38). While knee pain, overall knee function, and quality of life generally showed minimal differences between the 2 groups, it is noteworthy that the largest observed difference was in knee pain, where the cohort group scored 7 points worse (95% confidence interval 5-9, standardized difference: 0.29).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients in RCTs were largely representative of those in cohort studies regarding baseline scores, though variations in age and disease severity were observed. Younger patients with less severe osteoarthritis were more common in the cohort; however, trial participants still appear to be broadly representative of the target population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"volume\":\"94 \",\"pages\":\"570-576\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10690978/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.24576\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.24576","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:评估关节镜半月板部分切除术(APM)治疗退行性半月板撕裂的随机对照试验(rct)结果的可推广性存在担忧。有人认为,研究人群并不代表在日常临床实践中选择手术的受试者。因此,我们的目的是比较试验和前瞻性队列研究中接受APM治疗退行性半月板撕裂的患者。患者和方法:收集了4项随机对照试验和2项队列研究的个体参与者数据。1970例患者被分析:605例患者被纳入随机对照试验,1365例患者被纳入队列。我们比较了RCT组和队列组的患者和疾病特征、膝关节疼痛、总体膝关节功能和基线时健康相关生活质量,采用标准化差异、连续协变量方差比较比率和图形方法,如分位数图、并排箱形图和非参数密度图。结果:RCT与队列的差异主要体现在年龄上(队列中较年轻的患者;标准化差异:0.32)和疾病严重程度,其中RCT组症状更严重(标准化差异:0.38)。虽然两组患者在膝关节疼痛、整体膝关节功能和生活质量方面的差异很小,但值得注意的是,观察到的最大差异是膝关节疼痛,队列组得分差7分(95%置信区间为5-9,标准化差值为0.29)。结论:尽管观察到年龄和疾病严重程度的差异,但rct中的患者在基线评分方面在很大程度上代表了队列研究中的患者。年龄较小的骨关节炎患者在队列中更为常见;然而,试验参与者似乎仍然广泛地代表了目标人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for the degenerative meniscus tear: a comparison of patients included in RCTs and prospective cohort studies.

Background and purpose: Concerns exist regarding the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) to treat degenerative meniscus tears. It has been suggested that study populations are not representative of subjects selected for surgery in daily clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to compare patients included in trials and prospective cohort studies that received APM for a degenerative meniscus tear.

Patients and methods: Individual participant data from 4 RCTs and 2 cohort studies undergoing APM were collected. 1,970 patients were analyzed: 605 patients included in RCTs and 1,365 included in the cohorts. We compared patient and disease characteristics, knee pain, overall knee function, and health-related quality of life at baseline between the RCT and cohort groups using standardized differences, ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates, and graphical methods such as quantile-quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots.

Results: Differences between RCT and the cohort were observed primarily in age (younger patients in the cohort; standardized difference: 0.32) and disease severity, with the RCT group having more severe symptoms (standardized difference: 0.38). While knee pain, overall knee function, and quality of life generally showed minimal differences between the 2 groups, it is noteworthy that the largest observed difference was in knee pain, where the cohort group scored 7 points worse (95% confidence interval 5-9, standardized difference: 0.29).

Conclusion: Patients in RCTs were largely representative of those in cohort studies regarding baseline scores, though variations in age and disease severity were observed. Younger patients with less severe osteoarthritis were more common in the cohort; however, trial participants still appear to be broadly representative of the target population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信